Thaksin's Children To Be Forced To Pay Income Tax At 37 Per Cent Rate

[Plus]

Plus, this does seem cut and dry and certainly explains how the Revenue Dept. could issue the written tax opinion as they did, since at that time (prior to the sale to Temasek) the existence of Ample Rich had not yet been disclosed. A day after the article in The Nation, the Bangkok Post did a write up of this case and never mentioned this law as being applicable to the transaction. I wonder why not.

There's no point in wondering, they are unquotable, as BP does not offer their archives for free. They can read them themselves until blue in the face, I don't care.

Much more interesting is how did the country's foremost tax lawyer and former Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Stock Exchange of Thailand who structured the deal miss something as simple as this? This doesn't seem likely unless there is more to this than we know.

Do you mean Thanong Bidaya? At that time he was the tzar, together with Thaksin they had complete control over the whole process and they counted on people just repeating what they tell them to. Revenue Dept, for example, was not going to tax Shin sale no matter what, until generals asserted themselves. For Thaksin and Thanong the consequences of the deal was a serious political miscalculation. In a hindsight they'd better paid a few billion in taxes and saved the rest.

One has to wonder, why didn't this tax attorney not structure it so that Ample Rich sold the shares to Thaksin's kids at market price? That way there would be no benefit derived by the kids to be taxed and any profits made by the offshore Ample Rich would not be taxed in Thailand until the profits were brought into Thailand (which I doubt would have happened). While since that time the Junta has declared the offshore company as being onshore, at that time they couldn't expect this.

There was a reason why Thaksin kept Ample Rich under the carpet. Politically he couldn't afford the public to know about it, so it didn't matter how much his kids would pay for the shares if he kept it our of the spotlight, as he hoped. I'm just speculating, btw. We will never know the exact reasoning behind every aspect of the deal. It was a massibe tax avoiding operation, there are always chances they left some cracks here and there, and they also felt politically secure to pull it off.

I do hope this gets made public as I think there is more to it than meets the eye. It is a very interesting tax case.

I won't be able to digest all the details. I'll wait for some other white paper, or Korn of Democrats, to explain it.

[Old Man River]

Plus, this does seem cut and dry and certainly explains how the Revenue Dept. could issue the written tax opinion as they did, since at that time (prior to the sale to Temasek) the existence of Ample Rich had not yet been disclosed. A day after the article in The Nation, the Bangkok Post did a write up of this case and never mentioned this law as being applicable to the transaction. I wonder why not.

There's no point in wondering, they are unquotable, as BP does not offer their archives for free. They can read them themselves until blue in the face, I don't care.

Much more interesting is how did the country's foremost tax lawyer and former Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Stock Exchange of Thailand who structured the deal miss something as simple as this? This doesn't seem likely unless there is more to this than we know.

Do you mean Thanong Bidaya? At that time he was the tzar, together with Thaksin they had complete control over the whole process and they counted on people just repeating what they tell them to. Revenue Dept, for example, was not going to tax Shin sale no matter what, until generals asserted themselves. For Thaksin and Thanong the consequences of the deal was a serious political miscalculation. In a hindsight they'd better paid a few billion in taxes and saved the rest.

One has to wonder, why didn't this tax attorney not structure it so that Ample Rich sold the shares to Thaksin's kids at market price? That way there would be no benefit derived by the kids to be taxed and any profits made by the offshore Ample Rich would not be taxed in Thailand until the profits were brought into Thailand (which I doubt would have happened). While since that time the Junta has declared the offshore company as being onshore, at that time they couldn't expect this.

There was a reason why Thaksin kept Ample Rich under the carpet. Politically he couldn't afford the public to know about it, so it didn't matter how much his kids would pay for the shares if he kept it our of the spotlight, as he hoped. I'm just speculating, btw. We will never know the exact reasoning behind every aspect of the deal. It was a massibe tax avoiding operation, there are always chances they left some cracks here and there, and they also felt politically secure to pull it off.

I do hope this gets made public as I think there is more to it than meets the eye. It is a very interesting tax case.

I won't be able to digest all the details. I'll wait for some other white paper, or Korn of Democrats, to explain it.

You can read the BP article here:

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-sout...?parentid=38308

Thanong Bidiya is a former banker, but I don't think he is a tax attorney. The person I am referring to (mentioned in the article) is considered Thailand's best. He is a former attorney for the World Bank in Wash. DC, an ex-Dep. Gov of the PTT and as mentioned, was Chairman of the Advisory Board for the SET. In tax circles, he is a heavyweight and not the type of person that would miss basic tax laws.

Ample Rich's tax books would matter in light of the law you mentioned, a law that the tax adviser would not have missed. I can only surmise he didn't think it applied.

[Plus]

the Bangkok Post did a write up of this case and never mentioned this law as being applicable to the transaction.

There are millions of reasons given why the sale should have been taxed in that BP article (thanks for the link). The white paper didn't mention the exact articles of Revenue Code, btw, but Bangkok Post did.

You keep the identity of Thailand's best tax lawyer undisclosed. Again, in that article only one person fits your description - Suvarn Valaisathien, referred to as "a tax expert and spokesman for the Shinawatra family" but, as a spokesman, he surely was not at liberty to disclose the truth.

Some quotes:

"Many people, not to mention businessmen, did not buy the story of the Shin share transaction as explained yesterday by Suvarn Valaisathien, the spokesman for the Shinawatra and Damapong families, feeling the explanation was vague and confusing..."

"Mr Suvarn's statement was clear as mud.."

"Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said Mr Suvarn lacked credibility..."

[sriracha john]

From Bangkok Post breaking news:-

Assets Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday allowed two grown-up children of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra to postpone their testifying to the panel on Shin Corp share sale, ASC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang said.

• Mr Panthongtae to meet with the panel at 9am on July 18, after his lawyer submitted a medical certificate from Rama IX hospital that he suffered food poisoning.
  
• Ms Pinthongta to meet with the panel at 10 am on August 24, after it received a letter from a university she attends in London that she will have to take an exam in mid-August.
  

Anyone know where Ms Pinthongta is studying, since the academic year is September to June? I don't know of any normal educational examinations scheduled during the long vac.

Regards

Edit PS There are resits and 'special needs' run during this period, but I'm assuming {maybe unwisely} that she is not subject to such.

Pinthongta is enrolled in a Masters program at Cass Business School in London:

http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/

============================================

More on the delay of justice...

Corruption examiners postpone Thaksin children's hearings

BANGKOK - A sub-committee of Thailand's anti-corruption Assets Examination Committee (AEC) which is currently probing into missing profits of Shin Corp. share sale to Singapore's Temasek Holdings in January 2006 has allowed two children of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to postpone their testimony on charges laid against them.

AEC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang told a press conference that the sub-committee held a meeting Wednesday and agreed on allowing Mr. Thaksin's son Panthongtae Shinawatra to testify to the sub-committee on July 18 at 9.30 am. The postponement was made after the accused said he was ill and sent a medical certificate requesting that his appearance be delayed as he was unable to testify.

Regarding Thaksin daughter Ms. Pinthongta, who earlier said she was unable to travel to Thailand and testify because she had to sit for a university examination in England, Mr. Sak said the subcommittee had decided to postpone its hearing to August 24 at 10 am.

The AEC earlier asked the Revenue Department demand a corporate tax collection of Bt20.89 billion (US$616 million) from the offshore company Ample Rich Investments, saying that the two children of Mr. Thaksin were liable for the tax since both were company directors at the time of the transaction.

The sub-committee found that Ample Rich had earned income from the Shin Corp share sale, dividends and profits, and must pay taxes on the transaction since it conducted its business in Thailand, despite being an offshore company registered elsewhere.

AEC had earlier concluded that Mr. Panthongtae and Ms. Pinthongta were liable for tax on a transaction last year in which the two bought 329.2 million Shin Corp shares from Ample Rich for one baht each and sold them the next day to Singapore's Temasek Holdings for Bt49.25 each.

Ample Rich is a holding company set up by Mr. Thaksin in the British Virgin Islands. The AEC said the company was established as part of a scheme to avoid paying taxes on the sale. It was only discovered after the sale that both Panthongtae and Pinthongta were owners of the firm.

AEC member Kaewsan Athipho has said the committee ruled Mr. Panthongtae and Ms. Pinthongta intended to evade taxes by selling the shares indirectly. Both registered the firm overseas but conducted business in Thailand. So, they must pay taxes like other corporations, Mr. Kaewsan said.

- MCOT

Edited July 4, 2007 by sriracha john

[Old Man River]

the Bangkok Post did a write up of this case and never mentioned this law as being applicable to the transaction.

There are millions of reasons given why the sale should have been taxed in that BP article (thanks for the link). The white paper didn't mention the exact articles of Revenue Code, btw, but Bangkok Post did.

You keep the identity of Thailand's best tax lawyer undisclosed. Again, in that article only one person fits your description - Suvarn Valaisathien, referred to as "a tax expert and spokesman for the Shinawatra family" but, as a spokesman, he surely was not at liberty to disclose the truth.

The BP article did not give a million reasons why the share sale should have been taxed from a legal perspective and in fact, clouded the issue, quoting one tax judge as saying "in principle, yes, taxes are not calculated on the buyer as no actual income has been gained. But, this is a loophole in the law."

Hence, The Nation's article dealt with shares being placed outside of the stock exchange being taxable upon sale (even if sold in the SET), while the BP's article dealt with the potential that no taxes are owed because no cash gains were realized until the shares were sold in the SET. The two laws seem to be at odds with each other, but in any event, the Junta has opined that taxes are owed so they are owed.

I didn't mention the tax attorney's name since it was already widely known and also out of deference to him as I am sure he is embarrassed about being involved in this.

[Plus]

Not a million, they quoted three people:

One tax expert said critical to the entire argument on whether tax liability should be considered or not is in the interpretation of Section 39 and 40 of the tax code, covering revenue liable for taxation.

Assessable income under Section 39 includes properties, securities as well as "other benefits" that can be valued in monetary terms.

.....

"The tax code is quite clear that income in this sense includes assets as well as any other benefits that are received," said one sitting justice on the Tax Court. - That's the one who "clouded" the issue. His overall opinion though is still crystal clear - "should have incurred tax liability".

.....

Tax lawyer Ruangkrai Leekitwattana noted that the Shinawatra share sales conflicted with a letter signed in 2000 by Suparut Kawatkul, then the director-general of the Revenue Department, that said the sale of shares under market price still resulted in assessable income.

>>>>>>

Coupled with the Nation's quotes it shows early opposition to Revenue Dept decision not to tax Shin sale. The junta just made it possible to review it.

[Old Man River]

Not a million, they quoted three people:

One tax expert said critical to the entire argument on whether tax liability should be considered or not is in the interpretation of Section 39 and 40 of the tax code, covering revenue liable for taxation.

Assessable income under Section 39 includes properties, securities as well as "other benefits" that can be valued in monetary terms.

.....

"The tax code is quite clear that income in this sense includes assets as well as any other benefits that are received," said one sitting justice on the Tax Court. - That's the one who "clouded" the issue. His overall opinion though is still crystal clear - "should have incurred tax liability".

.....

Tax lawyer Ruangkrai Leekitwattana noted that the Shinawatra share sales conflicted with a letter signed in 2000 by Suparut Kawatkul, then the director-general of the Revenue Department, that said the sale of shares under market price still resulted in assessable income.

>>>>>>

Coupled with the Nation's quotes it shows early opposition to Revenue Dept decision not to tax Shin sale. The junta just made it possible to review it.

We can pick different things out of the BP article to make our case, but it doesn't matter in the least. Attorneys on both sides will make their arguments, but Thaksin's kids will still owe the taxes.

It would be interesting to read the Law Society's white paper that The Nation's based its article on. I can't find it. Do you have a link?

[Plus]

No, at the moment of writing they paper didn't exist yet. Maybe it never materialised at all - after the parlament was dissolved no one could do anything about it anyway, until the junta set up AEC, and AEC doesn't need no white papers either.

[Old Man River]

No, at the moment of writing they paper didn't exist yet. Maybe it never materialised at all - after the parlament was dissolved no one could do anything about it anyway, until the junta set up AEC, and AEC doesn't need no white papers either.

No, they don't. Rule of law and all that, they don't need anything. They are the law.

[sriracha john]

Finance chief, six others face probe

AEC to examine whether officials were party to alleged tax evasion

Finance Ministry permanent secretary Suparat Kawatkul is among seven state officials who the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) yesterday decided to investigate for possible malfeasance in connection with tax payments by the Shinawatra family over its sale of Shin Corp last year.

The others are former Revenue Department director-general Sirote Sawatpanich, Paitoon Pongkesorn, Bencha Luischaroen, Chamras Yaemsoithong, Moreerat Bunyasiri and Krit Wipulanusat.

The AEC also accused Pranee Wetpruekpitak, a close aide of Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra, of involvement for sending letters asking for tax advice to the Revenue Department.

Suparat sent two aides to the press conference called by the AEC to announce its decision. They held mobile phones close to the microphone so that Suparat hear the exact wording of the AEC's decision.

AEC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang said that the body resolved to set up a panel comprising himself and eight others to look into whether the seven officials were guilty of malfeasance or dereliction of duty in connection with the alleged tax evasion by Pinthongta and Panthongtae Shinawatra, children of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Sak said that according to Article 39 of the Revenue Code, the share sale by Pinthongta and Panthongtae was taxable because they bought the Shin Corp shares outside the stock market as Ample Rich directors. However state officials ruled that the sale was not taxable.

Sak denied that the AEC was repeating an earlier investigation of Sirote by the National Counter Corruption Commission, in which he was found guilty of malfeasance and removed from his post.

"It is a different time and different action," he said.

Sak said Viroj Laohapan, chairman of an AEC panel, had reported that the Revenue Department had appraised Panthongtae and Pinthongta's tax liability over the Shin Corp share sale at up to Bt12 billion.

- The Nation

UPDATE

Tax officers indicted over Shin share transfers

Public prosecutors yesterday charged former Revenue Department chief Sirote Swasdipanich and four former senior officials with malfeasance for their failure to collect tax in the 1997 Shin Corp share transfer. Also named in the indictments filed with the Criminal Court were former director of the Legal Office Vichai Jungrakkiat, and former legal officers Suchinda Saengchompu, Morirat Bunyasiri and Kulluedee Saengsayan. All five were accused of acts of malfeasance and exempting tax from collection in the deal between Bannapot Damapong and his sister Potjaman Shinawatra, which caused 270 million baht worth of damage to the state. Potjaman, wife of deposed prime minister Thaksin, transferred 4.5 million shares worth 738 million baht to Mr Bannapot on Nov 7, 1997. The shares were held in the name of Duangta Wongpakdi, the Shinawatra family's housekeeper. Potjaman and Mr Bannapot told the department during questioning that the shares were meant as a gift.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/16Aug2007_news03.php

[Old Man River]

Finance chief, six others face probe

AEC to examine whether officials were party to alleged tax evasion

Finance Ministry permanent secretary Suparat Kawatkul is among seven state officials who the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) yesterday decided to investigate for possible malfeasance in connection with tax payments by the Shinawatra family over its sale of Shin Corp last year.

The others are former Revenue Department director-general Sirote Sawatpanich, Paitoon Pongkesorn, Bencha Luischaroen, Chamras Yaemsoithong, Moreerat Bunyasiri and Krit Wipulanusat.

The AEC also accused Pranee Wetpruekpitak, a close aide of Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra, of involvement for sending letters asking for tax advice to the Revenue Department.

Suparat sent two aides to the press conference called by the AEC to announce its decision. They held mobile phones close to the microphone so that Suparat hear the exact wording of the AEC's decision.

AEC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang said that the body resolved to set up a panel comprising himself and eight others to look into whether the seven officials were guilty of malfeasance or dereliction of duty in connection with the alleged tax evasion by Pinthongta and Panthongtae Shinawatra, children of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Sak said that according to Article 39 of the Revenue Code, the share sale by Pinthongta and Panthongtae was taxable because they bought the Shin Corp shares outside the stock market as Ample Rich directors. However state officials ruled that the sale was not taxable.

Sak denied that the AEC was repeating an earlier investigation of Sirote by the National Counter Corruption Commission, in which he was found guilty of malfeasance and removed from his post.

"It is a different time and different action," he said.

Sak said Viroj Laohapan, chairman of an AEC panel, had reported that the Revenue Department had appraised Panthongtae and Pinthongta's tax liability over the Shin Corp share sale at up to Bt12 billion.

- The Nation

UPDATE

Tax officers indicted over Shin share transfers

Public prosecutors yesterday charged former Revenue Department chief Sirote Swasdipanich and four former senior officials with malfeasance for their failure to collect tax in the 1997 Shin Corp share transfer. Also named in the indictments filed with the Criminal Court were former director of the Legal Office Vichai Jungrakkiat, and former legal officers Suchinda Saengchompu, Morirat Bunyasiri and Kulluedee Saengsayan. All five were accused of acts of malfeasance and exempting tax from collection in the deal between Bannapot Damapong and his sister Potjaman Shinawatra, which caused 270 million baht worth of damage to the state. Potjaman, wife of deposed prime minister Thaksin, transferred 4.5 million shares worth 738 million baht to Mr Bannapot on Nov 7, 1997. The shares were held in the name of Duangta Wongpakdi, the Shinawatra family's housekeeper. Potjaman and Mr Bannapot told the department during questioning that the shares were meant as a gift.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/16Aug2007_news03.php

SJ, I have already taken note of this. Anyone who has ever worked in fraud related cases knows that when a fraud occurs, the authorities should go after the ones committing the fraud, not the ones defrauded. Of course when politics are involved, then all bets are off. In Thailand, all bets are off.

[sibeymai]

it appears from the way the fraud was carried out (if indeed fraud is proved) that the government officials are not "the ones defrauded" but were complicit in the perpetration of the fraud and without their involvement the fraud could not have been committed.

If indeed fraud is proved then those at the Revenue Department and elsewhere are probably as guilty as hel_l. May the full force of the law come to bear.

There must be a lot of scared civil servants in Thailand right now.

Edited August 16, 2007 by sibeymai

[Old Man River]

it appears from the way the fraud was carried out (if indeed fraud is proved) that the government officials are not "the ones defrauded" but were complicit in the perpetration of the fraud and without their involvement the fraud could not have been committed.

If indeed fraud is proved then those at the Revenue Department and elsewhere are probably as guilty as hel_l. May the full force of the law come to bear.

There must be a lot of scared civil servants in Thailand right now.

Actually no. Not even the AEC has suggested those at the Rev. Dept were involved in the fraud (in my opinion it was a fraud and I am certain it will be proven as such). In fact, according to the AEC, the taxes weren't even due to be paid until several years later, but the Rev. Dept heads at that time did nothing to rectify the error in judgment (if was an error in judgment - it appears to be). Errors in judgment should not, in my opinion, lead to criminal malfeasance charges as they have for Sirote, but not for the heads of the Rev. Dept when the taxes should have been paid.

Remember, Sirote was acting head of the Rev. Dept. and putting his signature in support of his legal department was one of the very first orders of business that came his way. Where I come from, you support your people when you have no reason to believe they are involved in anything illegal and no reason to believe they are wrong. His signing this document has led to his being charged with criminal malfeasance. This issue is one of those issues where there is a whole lot more than meets the eye.

[sibeymai]

it appears from the way the fraud was carried out (if indeed fraud is proved) that the government officials are not "the ones defrauded" but were complicit in the perpetration of the fraud and without their involvement the fraud could not have been committed.

If indeed fraud is proved then those at the Revenue Department and elsewhere are probably as guilty as hel_l. May the full force of the law come to bear.

There must be a lot of scared civil servants in Thailand right now.

Actually no. Not even the AEC has suggested those at the Rev. Dept were involved in the fraud (in my opinion it was a fraud and I am certain it will be proven as such). In fact, according to the AEC, the taxes weren't even due to be paid until several years later, but the Rev. Dept heads at that time did nothing to rectify the error in judgment (if was an error in judgment - it appears to be). Errors in judgment should not, in my opinion, lead to criminal malfeasance charges as they have for Sirote, but not for the heads of the Rev. Dept when the taxes should have been paid.

Remember, Sirote was acting head of the Rev. Dept. and putting his signature in support of his legal department was one of the very first orders of business that came his way. Where I come from, you support your people when you have no reason to believe they are involved in anything illegal and no reason to believe they are wrong. His signing this document has led to his being charged with criminal malfeasance. This issue is one of those issues where there is a whole lot more than meets the eye.

It's probably a cse of the legislation being unclear and a determination could possibly have been made either way at the time.

The question is whether undue influence was used to end up with the decision which was made.

If the court decides that the law was in fact ambiguous and a decision could have been made either way then the malfeasance charge probably won't stand scrutiny because of the element of doubt.

On the other hand, if the court decides that a very long bow has to be drawn to make the policy fit the decision made then malfeasance is definitely justified.

[Plus]

I don't believe for a second that Sirote was duped into thinking that those millions of shares were really wedding gifts - two years after the wedding and with money paid to Shinawatras accounts.

He also went public sticking to Thaksin's version and refusing to even try to collect taxes. That was some six years after the sale (gift), when the case finally came to light.

[Old Man River]

it appears from the way the fraud was carried out (if indeed fraud is proved) that the government officials are not "the ones defrauded" but were complicit in the perpetration of the fraud and without their involvement the fraud could not have been committed.

If indeed fraud is proved then those at the Revenue Department and elsewhere are probably as guilty as hel_l. May the full force of the law come to bear.

There must be a lot of scared civil servants in Thailand right now.

Actually no. Not even the AEC has suggested those at the Rev. Dept were involved in the fraud (in my opinion it was a fraud and I am certain it will be proven as such). In fact, according to the AEC, the taxes weren't even due to be paid until several years later, but the Rev. Dept heads at that time did nothing to rectify the error in judgment (if was an error in judgment - it appears to be). Errors in judgment should not, in my opinion, lead to criminal malfeasance charges as they have for Sirote, but not for the heads of the Rev. Dept when the taxes should have been paid.

Remember, Sirote was acting head of the Rev. Dept. and putting his signature in support of his legal department was one of the very first orders of business that came his way. Where I come from, you support your people when you have no reason to believe they are involved in anything illegal and no reason to believe they are wrong. His signing this document has led to his being charged with criminal malfeasance. This issue is one of those issues where there is a whole lot more than meets the eye.

It's probably a cse of the legislation being unclear and a determination could possibly have been made either way at the time.

The question is whether undue influence was used to end up with the decision which was made.

If the court decides that the law was in fact ambiguous and a decision could have been made either way then the malfeasance charge probably won't stand scrutiny because of the element of doubt.

On the other hand, if the court decides that a very long bow has to be drawn to make the policy fit the decision made then malfeasance is definitely justified.

The court has already made up their mind.

[Old Man River]

I don't believe for a second that Sirote was duped into thinking that those millions of shares were really wedding gifts - two years after the wedding and with money paid to Shinawatras accounts.

He also went public sticking to Thaksin's version and refusing to even try to collect taxes. That was some six years after the sale (gift), when the case finally came to light.

Just once it would be nice if you could take your blinders off as it relates to this government. There is no point debating you on this with facts and you won't see them anyway. People at the Rev. Dept continue to say he is honest, but was too trusting of the then legal dept. Anyway, it doesn't matter. He was the head of the Rev. Dept when the Temsasek sale took place and he needs to be made to pay some how some way. Besides Thaksin, everyone knows the most hated person in Thailand is the tax man.

[Siripon]

I don't believe for a second that Sirote was duped into thinking that those millions of shares were really wedding gifts - two years after the wedding and with money paid to Shinawatras accounts.

He also went public sticking to Thaksin's version and refusing to even try to collect taxes. That was some six years after the sale (gift), when the case finally came to light.

Not forgetting the' birthday gift' was paid through the account of the maid, Duangta! If only she had had the nerve to run off with the money, but impossible at the time of course.

Plus, SJ, John, (too late for Young Husband), if you're thinking of getting married please inform me 2 years in advance and I'll arrange for one of the motorcycle-taxi drivers I know to slip you a check. It's a Thai tradition to pay this way.....

[Old Man River]

I don't believe for a second that Sirote was duped into thinking that those millions of shares were really wedding gifts - two years after the wedding and with money paid to Shinawatras accounts.

He also went public sticking to Thaksin's version and refusing to even try to collect taxes. That was some six years after the sale (gift), when the case finally came to light.

Not forgetting the' birthday gift' was paid through the account of the maid, Duangta! If only she had had the nerve to run off with the money, but impossible at the time of course.

From a legal standpoint, criminal fraud is completely separate from tax liabilities. The fact that someone sets up a scheme to defraud the taxing authorities carries separate charges and penalties from penalties on unpaid taxes. Why was nothing ever made of Mrs. Shinawatra owing taxes on the money she received from the maid? Clearly, this would be taxable income. Somehow this tax liability is not a tax liability. How could this be?

[Plus]

Sirote came out with his explanations after some guy delibirately set the similar scam and was duly taxed. The matter went to the courts where he publicly demanded that Shinawatras were taxed, too. Rev Dept quitely dropped the case and sent him a refund.

If I'm not mistaken that's how it came to light. There's absolutely no shred of credibility in claims that Sirote didn't know what was going on. It was all over newspapers.

[sriracha john]

Plus, SJ, John, (too late for Young Husband), if you're thinking of getting married please inform me 2 years in advance and I'll arrange for one of the motorcycle-taxi drivers I know to slip you a check. It's a Thai tradition to pay this way.....

Thank you so much... but if it's ok... I'd like the big guy to pay it with a big AIS check....

[Tony Clifton]

Sirote came out with his explanations after some guy delibirately set the similar scam and was duly taxed. The matter went to the courts where he publicly demanded that Shinawatras were taxed, too. Rev Dept quitely dropped the case and sent him a refund.

If I'm not mistaken that's how it came to light. There's absolutely no shred of credibility in claims that Sirote didn't know what was going on. It was all over newspapers.

That's what I also remember.

Just another public servant eunuch serving the abusive PM Emperor at the time.

[Tony Clifton]

Plus, SJ, John, (too late for Young Husband), if you're thinking of getting married please inform me 2 years in advance and I'll arrange for one of the motorcycle-taxi drivers I know to slip you a check. It's a Thai tradition to pay this way.....

Thank you so much... but if it's ok... I'd like the big guy to pay it with a big AIS check....

Don't get your hopes up too high. A friend of the wife has quit his job at AIS (sick of internal policies) back then and says Scroogawatra never even once paid for lunch.

[Old Man River]

Sirote came out with his explanations after some guy delibirately set the similar scam and was duly taxed. The matter went to the courts where he publicly demanded that Shinawatras were taxed, too. Rev Dept quitely dropped the case and sent him a refund.

If I'm not mistaken that's how it came to light. There's absolutely no shred of credibility in claims that Sirote didn't know what was going on. It was all over newspapers.

Clueless on the question of Mrs. Shinawatra's not having to pay taxes on a gift of money from her maid? So am I, but I thought that from the way Siripon talked he might be able to shed some light on it. I guess not, but we are not talking about motorcycle taxis here.

On the guy you are referring to, you have to be aware that different decisions are made by different people at government agencies all over the world. In this case, one Rev. Dept said he owed taxes, then under Sirote (to be consistent from a decision made many years ago) they said he didn't owe the taxes. However, following the Temasek sale he went public saying the Rev. Dept. made the wrong decision and he did owe taxes as he was a good citizen and therefore should pay the nominal amount owed. If it was a lot of money most probably nobody would have ever heard from this guy.

[sriracha john]

Surin: I was not a Temasek nominee

Surin Upatkoon, the main shareholder in the controversial Kularb Kaew Co, was yesterday charged with a criminal offence for alleged illegal representation of a foreign company under the Foreign Business Act 1999.

Acting police chief Seripisut Temiyavej said that Fairmont Investments Group, based in the British Virgin Islands, would also face criminal charges under the act.

In his testimony given last September, Surin claimed that he had financed his investment in the company with his own money. He also insisted he was not a nominee of the Singaporean government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings.

- The Nation

[Old Man River]

Surin: I was not a Temasek nominee

Surin Upatkoon, the main shareholder in the controversial Kularb Kaew Co, was yesterday charged with a criminal offence for alleged illegal representation of a foreign company under the Foreign Business Act 1999.

Acting police chief Seripisut Temiyavej said that Fairmont Investments Group, based in the British Virgin Islands, would also face criminal charges under the act.

In his testimony given last September, Surin claimed that he had financed his investment in the company with his own money. He also insisted he was not a nominee of the Singaporean government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings.

- The Nation

While I am not sure what this case has to do with this thread, of all the cases involving the Temasek purchase, this one will be one of the most interesting. If Surin didn't fund the Temasek purchase with his money, then whose money did he use?

[pukkagent]

It's very difficult to grasp everything regarding this affair. There have been so many people who have been caught up in this. There is a slight bit of a smear campaign though, regarding anything and everything to do with the ex-president. He may or may not have done many things, but he's certainly not the only Thai official who has had dirty hands.

I think that there is a lot of negative stuff regarding this. It will only effect the Thai people badly in the long run if it carries on, so I hope that people don't work from hate or revenge towards the ex-prime minister, and instead work for the complete truth, so that the Thai people can have faith in their government system.

I personally don't 'hate' Khun Thaksin. I can't imagine he's guilty of every single thing that's being brought to his door.

it appears from the way the fraud was carried out (if indeed fraud is proved) that the government officials are not "the ones defrauded" but were complicit in the perpetration of the fraud and without their involvement the fraud could not have been committed.

If indeed fraud is proved then those at the Revenue Department and elsewhere are probably as guilty as hel_l. May the full force of the law come to bear.

There must be a lot of scared civil servants in Thailand right now.

Edited August 26, 2007 by pukkagent

[John K]

Thaksin's children appeal on Shin tax

Panthongtae Shinawatra and his sister Pinthongta have filed the tax appeal with the Revenue Department, following department's decision to slap share sale taxes of Bt11.3 billion on both children of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"I assume that they said in the appeal that they are not entitled to the tax payment," said Revenue Department Director-General Sanit Rangnoi. He noted that he not yet seen the appeal, which was filed with the Revenue Office Region 3.

He also noted that the department's duty in chasing for the tax ends here and now the appeal would be forwarded to appeal committee, which is represented by officials from the department, the Attorney General's Office and the Interior Ministry. If the appeal could not be resolved at this stage, the tax case would go to court, he said.

Both Panthongtae and Pinthongta are obliged to put up collateral with the value equivalent to the tax amount plus fines calculated until the appeal filing date. Without the collateral, the department can seize their assets and force sell the assets.

Panthongtae and Pinthongta did not pay any tax for the gains they reaped from selling shares in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings.

- The Nation

[TAWP]

pukkagent>> Ex-president? Thaksin has never been elected to such a position. Or any position. We has PM.

[John K]

This may be the first step in a legal calculated move on Thaksin’s part tied to the recent discovery on Win Mark.

Excerpt from Thaksin's September 11, 2007 press release.

On September 9, 2007, the AEC expressly accused Ample Rich, Win Mark, Panthongthae Shinawatra (Dr. Thaksin's son) and Pinthongtha Shinawatra (Dr. Thaksin's daughter) as being “nominees” holding Shin Corp shares on behalf of Dr. Thaksin. However, a few months ago, the very same AEC was accusing both Panthongthae and Pinthongtha Shinawatra of failure to pay income taxes on the Shin Corp shares, the two of them “owned”! How many standards does the AEC use in carrying out their jobs? How many assumptions can the AEC make with respect to the very same set of facts? How many sides of the story can be told just to achieve their political goals of discrediting Dr. Thaksin and his family?

If the AEC insisted that Dr. Thaksin had always been the owner of all Shin Corp shares but let others hold shares on his behalf, the AEC must drop all the tax charges against Panthongthae and Pinthongtha Shinawatra at once.

Source: Truethaksin.com

Edited September 18, 2007 by John K