Pm Told To Pay 5 Billion In Taxes

[Heng]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.

[ratcatcher]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did Don Corleone ever pay for olive oil?

That's why Elmer ain't going to pay his tax in bill.

If you asked Thaksin " Do you understand taxes ?" he'd say " Isn't that where George W.Bush has his little farm?"

[Siripon]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heng, do you remember the case of 'shipping moo', 2 or 3 years ago? He claimed that Shin Corps had intentionally imported certain items under the wrong category so as to pay less tax. He was found dead a few days later.

And what do you think about the floating of the Thai baht in 1997? Who knew 10 days before?

[Ricardo]

As I recall it, the Thai Baht didn't so much 'float' in 1997, rather it sank with all hands !

Does anyone know when this is next scheduled to happen ?

[Heng]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

Heng, do you remember the case of 'shipping moo', 2 or 3 years ago? He claimed that Shin Corps had intentionally imported certain items under the wrong category so as to pay less tax. He was found dead a few days later.

And what do you think about the floating of the Thai baht in 1997? Who knew 10 days before?

Shipping pig? Hadn't heard of the case. But whoever he/she was, they should have known better than to be messing with someone else's money tree.

I think the floating of the Baht was one of the best things that could have happened (for personal reasons). More than a few people knew well in advance, no different than the insider trading that goes on every single day in every single one of the world's major exchanges.

[Heng]

As I recall it, the Thai Baht didn't so much 'float' in 1997, rather it sank with all hands ! 

Does anyone know when this is next scheduled to happen ?

Most of the naysayers like to predict that it will happen "5-10 years from now." Said folks have been doing so since around 1998. They'll be "right" eventually. What's funny is despite this "foresight" they'll still likely whinge about getting burned by it whenever it happens.

[phuketsiam]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the point is that he got a huge tax bill (but easy for him to pay) because he was caught trying to evade taxes illegally

[Heng]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

I think the point is that he got a huge tax bill (but easy for him to pay) because he was caught trying to evade taxes illegally

If evading taxes and "illegally" evading taxes were indeed black and white issues, there wouldn't be such a thing as offshore banking in this world. Given, it's going to be a lot more difficult for those who are publicly listed. I don't think it makes it any more or less "wrong" though.

[phuketsiam]

Isn't it illegal for a Thai to have an off-shore bank?

What you are reffering to is tax evasion and tax avoidance, one is illegal, one isn't, or though as always there is room for interpretaion and grey areas, but bribing an official to mis-interprate the rules isn't very grey to me

[Heng]

Isn't it illegal for a Thai to have an off-shore bank?

What you are reffering to is tax evasion and tax avoidance, one is illegal, one isn't, or though as always there is room for interpretaion and grey areas, but bribing an official to mis-interprate the rules isn't very grey to me

Yeah, everyone I know do the tax avoidance thing. Tax evasion is for bad people. Bad bad people.

Not illegal... or at worst case, a nice shade of grey. Why would Bangkok Bank, Kasikorn, etc. allow everyone to hold accounts at their own foreign branches?

As for the official misinterpreting the rules... he/she may have been doing so out of respect or fear.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Heng

[torgate]

some would state tax evasion is the general term for efforts by govt officials, who own firms, trusts and other entities to evade the payment of taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails govt officials deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the lower thought of tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as underdeclaring income, profits or gains; or overstating deductions, share Tranfers distributed between family members, etc for one's own purpose).

Tax avoidance from my understanding is the legal utilisation of the tax regime to one's own advantage, in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law created by the govt who create it for the purpose of statute or common reasons..

Being prime minister of some place not far to distant may be considered to be the immoral dodging of one's duties to society or just the right of selfness to find all the legal ways to avoid paying too much tax. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is a specific and wellplanned application of the Doctrine of Evasion and, as such, it is a CRIME in almost all countries, even some place not to faraway and subjects the guilty party to fines or even IMPRISONMENT, maybe or maybe not.

a hopeful difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall.

alledged that some would say...

Edited December 18, 2005 by torgate

[Ijustwannateach]

Ah, Heng's just trying to keep the power of the PM strong enough so that one of his great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren might have a chance at similarly making out like a bandit, assuming that they haven't mutated by that time into some kind of alien extra-dimensional form of pure energy resulting from their genetically superior makeup, which apparently has something to do with the inferior genes of the native Thais making them less well-suited to money lending... or something like that!!! Better hurry up before I use up all the electricity on this 386 (and I'll have you know, it's a 386i!!! Slllurrrrrrrrp... boy, are these noodles good!)

"Steven"

[sriracha john]

[Heng]

Ah, Heng's just trying to keep the power of the PM strong enough so that one of his great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren might have a chance at similarly making out like a bandit, assuming that they haven't mutated by that time into some kind of alien extra-dimensional form of pure energy resulting from their genetically superior makeup, which apparently has something to do with the inferior genes of the native Thais making them less well-suited to money lending... or something like that!!!  Better hurry up before I use up all the electricity on this 386 (and I'll have you know, it's a 386i!!! Slllurrrrrrrrp... boy, are these noodles good!)

"Steven"

Easy on the Maddog 20/20 there, Steve.

[Plus]

I think the case is closed now - the matter went through courts already and was settled. Then this new guy tries to catch the court with a share transfer of its own and fight citing Taksin's case. So he won, too.

In The Nation they quoted the court's reason: "He [bhanapot, Pojamarn's borther] was granted an exemption on grounds that the two stock transactions had been “moral obligations” on Pojaman’s part.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...-12-17&usrsess=

I can't make heads or tails out of this reasoning but this is Thailand.

Nothing will ever come out of it, you'll never hear of it again.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

T i T rules. LOL

[Siripon]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heng, do you remember the case of 'shipping moo', 2 or 3 years ago? He claimed that Shin Corps had intentionally imported certain items under the wrong category so as to pay less tax. He was found dead a few days later.

And what do you think about the floating of the Thai baht in 1997? Who knew 10 days before?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shipping pig? Hadn't heard of the case. But whoever he/she was, they should have known better than to be messing with someone else's money tree.

I think the floating of the Baht was one of the best things that could have happened (for personal reasons). More than a few people knew well in advance, no different than the insider trading that goes on every single day in every single one of the world's major exchanges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So do you think it was morally right for Cabinet Ministers to sell the Thai baht on foreign exchanges prior the official floating as alleged by Sonti ?

[Heng]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

Heng, do you remember the case of 'shipping moo', 2 or 3 years ago? He claimed that Shin Corps had intentionally imported certain items under the wrong category so as to pay less tax. He was found dead a few days later.

And what do you think about the floating of the Thai baht in 1997? Who knew 10 days before?

Shipping pig? Hadn't heard of the case. But whoever he/she was, they should have known better than to be messing with someone else's money tree.

I think the floating of the Baht was one of the best things that could have happened (for personal reasons). More than a few people knew well in advance, no different than the insider trading that goes on every single day in every single one of the world's major exchanges.

So do you think it was morally right for Cabinet Ministers to sell the Thai baht on foreign exchanges prior the official floating as alleged by Sonti ?

Absolutely NOT. But I think more people than you think would have done exactly the same thing given the opportunity.

It's like that magic black box in the old Twilight Zone. Pushing the button in the black box will bring you instant wealth, but at the sacrifice that someone random in the world will die when you do so. In the end, I think most people can't resist "pushing the button," even if it involved a death sentence.

IMO in fewer people would have a problem knowing that the losers on the other side of the equation were merely speculators in that eternal zero-sum forex, stocks, and options game.

[sriracha john]

So he got a tax bill, big deal.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heng, do you remember the case of 'shipping moo', 2 or 3 years ago? He claimed that Shin Corps had intentionally imported certain items under the wrong category so as to pay less tax. He was found dead a few days later.

And what do you think about the floating of the Thai baht in 1997? Who knew 10 days before?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shipping pig? Hadn't heard of the case. But whoever he/she was, they should have known better than to be messing with someone else's money tree.

I think the floating of the Baht was one of the best things that could have happened (for personal reasons). More than a few people knew well in advance, no different than the insider trading that goes on every single day in every single one of the world's major exchanges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So do you think it was morally right for Cabinet Ministers to sell the Thai baht on foreign exchanges prior the official floating as alleged by Sonti ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some background info on the above:

By ThaiDay 18 December 2005 19:17

Staunch government critic Sondhi Limthongkul last night implicitly accused Finance Minister Thanong Bidaya of leaking crucial information on the 1997 baht devaluation to Shin Corp executives including Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, helping the telecom conglomerate survive the financial crisis.

In the 12th weekly installment of the talk show-cum-political rally Thailand This Week held in Lumphini Park, Sondhi further accused Thanong, who was also finance minister during the 1997 crisis, of aiding foreign currency speculators.

Sonthi said these speculators were privy to inside information that allowed them to make billions of baht from the steep depreciation of the baht after Thanong ordered the closure of more than 50 finance companies.

“This is the most evil part of Thanong’s action,” Sondhi said of the forced closures.

On July 2, 1997, the first day the baht was floated, the currency fell from 25 baht per US$1 to 28 baht per dollar. After the closure of finance companies, the baht’s value plunged to 37 baht to the dollar.

“Just imagine that, within a short period of time after the baht was first devalued, those who had quietly amassed $3 billion would have made a huge profit of more than 30 billion baht,” Sondhi said.

“Those few who had enriched themselves over the corpses of the Thai people must be condemned and Thanong must answer the question of who they are.”

Sondhi, who is also founder of Manager Media Group and chairman of ThaiDay’s editorial board, said that senior Bank of Thailand officials had quietly suggested a baht devaluation on June 21, 1997. Some 11 days were allowed to pass before the official announcement of the float was made on July 2, he claimed.

Sondhi implicitly charged that the crucial decision on the baht’s devaluation was leaked to Thanong’s close associates, including Shin Corp executives during this period.

Sondhi promised that on Monday he would ask the Bank of Thailand to publicize a detailed account of the events leading up to the July 2 devaluation. He also said he would request information about who purchased dollars and how much they had made from those deals.

The media mogul then accused the Thaksin administration of contradicting His Majesty the King’s recommendations on the sufficiency economy.

Sondhi said he was frustrated by the prime minister’s move to invite foreigners to invest in Thailand’s 1.7-trillion-baht worth of megaprojects, including highways, power plants and subway systems.

“This is not development, this is regression,” he said pointing to people’s growing personal debt.

“The prime minister’s definition of prosperity is focused on the wrong kind of development…It is we who understand His Majesty the King’s words; Prime Minister Thaksin does not.”

Sondhi proposed changes to the toll system to help fund road construction and called on people to oppose the privatization of EGAT.

“If you love your country, if you love your land, do not allow EGAT to be privatized,” he said to rapturous applause.

Since Sondhi last week accused Interior Minister ACM Kongsak Wanthana of brokering a deal to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that would allegedly net him a 3.5-billion-baht commission, the House Committee on Military Affairs called for an investigation.

[lomatopo]

According to the report, in the year 2000, less than 12 months before Mr Thaksin became prime minister, he and Khunying Potjaman transferred 27 million Shin Corp Plc shares outside the stock market at a par value of 10 baht to Mr Thaksin's sister Yinglak and Khunying Potjaman's brother Bannapoj Damapong.

The value of the shares at that time was 150 baht per share which meant that if the shares were resold by Ms Yinglak or Mr Bannapoj, they would both have made a 140 baht profit on each share.

While I’m no expert on Thai tax laws, I am familiar with the implications of the gifting of shares in the U.S.A., as a result of my participation in estate and foundation planning.

In the U.S.A. the gifter would not pay any tax on the shares gifted. The recipient would assume the cost basis, in this case 10 Baht, which they would then have to factor into to any future sales and the tax to be paid. Hence if they were to immediately sell then they would have to pay tax on the profit of 140 Baht.

In the event the shares are donated to a non-profit organization (charity, university, etc.) the recipient assumes the cost basis on the date of the transfer. In this case it would be 150 Baht, and if they sold that same day no tax would be due. This is beneficial to both the gifter, as they get to write off the donation, and the recipient, as they get a nice tax-exempt donation (they can sell immediately or hold and sell in the future retaining the original, 150 Baht, cost basis).

In both cases gift tax forms need to be completed, unless the amounts are below a certain limit, filed with the IRS. These gifts are tracked, and must be accounted for as part of the Estate, when that is settled.

There was an article in today’s Bangkok Post that indicated (contrary to news item in the first post in this thread, although there was no attribution so maybe it was just something the OP fashioned?), according to the Revenue Department that there is no tax liability on the gifter, in this case Mr. Thaksin (which is as it is in the U.S., and in my opinion, as it should be anywhere), and that any tax liability is assumed by the recipient. Further there may be ways for the recipient to further shield themselves from any liability. Tax codes 39 & 42 are mentioned and that gifts as a result of a “moral obligation” may alter the cost basis for the recipient, but the article is less than clear on these matters. I would hope that the recipients assume the cost basis of 10 baht, and that they have to pay tax on any profits when they sell, and that they cannot make further transfer of any shares without paying the tax due on the profit, and then the new recipient could assume the new cost basis. I can easily envision a new, future tax code that waives tax on profit from selling telecomms shares based on some sort of imaginary benefit to the country?

UCOMM (Bencharongkul family) just came into a couple boatloads of money as a result of selling DTAC to Telenor. I wonder if they paid tax on their profits?