Tag: Law Amendment

on by

Anti-Bribery: Digital Government Data Integration Raises Compliance Expectations

Thailand’s Cabinet has acknowledged progress on a series of anti-bribery initiatives designed to strengthen transparency and improve the government’s ability to detect corruption. While the measures remain at the policy and implementation stage, they indicate a clear direction toward greater use of digital government systems, cross-agency data integration, and risk-based monitoring.

For businesses that interact with government agencies, participate in public procurement, or operate in regulated industries, these developments are likely to increase compliance expectations even before new legal requirements are formally introduced.

Key Policy Developments:

The government’s anti-bribery initiatives contemplate a more integrated approach to corruption prevention through digital technologies and inter-agency cooperation. Key initiatives include:

  • Integration of financial, tax, and public procurement data across government agencies.
  • Greater public disclosure of government information through centralized digital platforms.
  • Expansion of end-to-end digital government services to reduce discretionary human interaction.
  • Use of data analytics and risk assessment tools to identify suspicious transactions and detect corruption proactively.
  • Consideration of incentive mechanisms to encourage greater private-sector participation in anti-corruption efforts.

Although these initiatives primarily reflect policy direction, they are consistent with Thailand’s broader digital government strategy and increasing reliance on technology to strengthen regulatory oversight.

Practical Implications for Businesses:

Businesses should anticipate that government agencies will increasingly be able to cross-reference information obtained from different regulatory systems. As digital integration expands, inconsistencies or unusual transaction patterns may become more visible.

Particular attention should be paid to:

Increased Cross-Database Verification:

Payments, tax filings, procurement records, licensing information, and other regulatory submissions may increasingly be compared across multiple government databases. Information that previously existed in separate systems may become easier for authorities to analyze collectively.

Higher Scrutiny of Third-Party Relationships:

Transactions involving consultants, agents, brokers, intermediaries, subcontractors, and other third parties are likely to attract greater regulatory attention. Authorities may increasingly examine whether such arrangements serve legitimate business purposes or could conceal improper payments or undisclosed benefits.

Enhanced Documentation of Business Hospitality and Related Expenditures:

Corporate hospitality, gifts, sponsorships, charitable contributions, travel expenses, and any facilitation-type payments should be supported by clear business justifications, documented approval processes, and appropriate accounting records. Well-documented decision-making will become increasingly important if government agencies rely on integrated digital records during investigations.

Greater Focus on Third-Party Due Diligence:

Businesses should expect growing emphasis on robust third-party risk management, including:

  • Appropriate due diligence before engaging intermediaries;
  • Verification of beneficial ownership where appropriate;
  • Ongoing monitoring of higher-risk business partners; and
  • Documentation demonstrating that compensation arrangements are commercially reasonable.

Recommended Compliance Actions:

Even in the absence of new mandatory legal obligations, organizations should consider reviewing whether their anti-corruption compliance framework remains appropriate for an increasingly data-driven enforcement environment.

Areas for review include:

  • Anti-bribery and anti-corruption policies;
  • Approval matrices for gifts, entertainment, sponsorships, donations, and government-related expenditures;
  • Conflict-of-interest declaration procedures;
  • Gift and hospitality registers;
  • Third-party due diligence procedures;
  • Beneficial ownership verification processes;
  • Record-keeping and supporting documentation standards; and
  • Whistleblowing channels and internal investigation procedures.

Particular attention should be given to employees who regularly interact with government officials, including sales personnel, business development teams, procurement staff, regulatory affairs personnel, and employees responsible for obtaining government approvals or participating in public procurement.

Looking Ahead:

The government’s continued investment in digital infrastructure suggests that anti-corruption enforcement may increasingly rely on data integration and analytical tools rather than solely on traditional investigations or complaints. As government agencies gain greater ability to connect information across multiple regulatory systems, businesses should expect higher standards of transparency, documentation, and governance.

Organizations that strengthen their compliance controls now will be better positioned to respond to increased regulatory scrutiny and demonstrate effective anti-bribery compliance as Thailand’s digital government initiatives continue to evolve.

Key Takeaways:

Businesses should review their anti-bribery policies, third-party due diligence procedures, conflict-of-interest controls, gift registers, and whistleblowing mechanisms to ensure they remain effective in an increasingly digital regulatory environment.

Government agencies are moving toward greater integration of financial, tax, procurement, and regulatory data.

Cross-agency data sharing is likely to increase the detection of inconsistent or high-risk transactions.

Third-party relationships, including consultants, agents, brokers, and subcontractors, are expected to receive greater scrutiny.

Gifts, hospitality, sponsorships, charitable contributions, and other government-related expenditures should be supported by clear documentation and approval records.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Supreme Court Confirms Internal Estate Rules Cannot Override the Land Allocation Act

A recent Supreme Court judgment provides important guidance on the limits of a housing estate juristic person’s authority under the Land Allocation Act. In Supreme Court Judgment, the Court held that internal regulations and resolutions adopted by members cannot override mandatory statutory provisions or expand the powers granted to a housing estate juristic person under the Act.

Although the dispute concerned the retention of a construction security deposit, the decision has broader implications for developers, housing estate juristic persons, property managers, and homeowners. It reinforces the principle that private governance documents cannot be used to circumvent statutory protections established under the Land Allocation Act.

Background:

The dispute arose after a homeowner obtained permission from a housing estate juristic person to renovate a house within the estate. As required under the estate’s procedures, the homeowner paid construction security deposits before commencing the renovation works.

The renovation was completed without causing any damage to the estate’s common property or infrastructure. The homeowner subsequently requested the return of the deposits.

The housing estate juristic person refused to refund the full amount, arguing that, under its internal regulations and resolutions adopted at members’ meetings, it was entitled to retain part of the deposits as contributions toward the maintenance of common property.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the homeowner’s claim. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and ordered the housing estate juristic person to refund the retained amount together with statutory interest. The housing estate juristic person appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate judgment.

The Court first examined the legal purpose of a construction security deposit. It held that such a deposit is intended solely to secure compensation for potential damage to common property or common facilities arising from construction or renovation works.

Because the renovation had been completed without any damage to the common property, the purpose of the security deposit had been fulfilled. Consequently, the housing estate juristic person had no legal basis to continue holding the deposit.

The Court rejected the argument that the retained amount could instead be treated as common area maintenance fees.

Internal Regulations Cannot Override the Act:

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the housing estate juristic person could rely on its internal regulations and resolutions adopted by members to justify retaining part of the construction security deposit.

The Court answered this question in the negative.

The Supreme Court observed that the collection and administration of maintenance fees for common property are comprehensively governed by the Land Allocation Act and the subordinate regulations issued under that legislation. The statutory framework prescribes how maintenance fees are to be imposed, collected, and administered.

Accordingly, a housing estate juristic person cannot create an alternative collection mechanism simply because it has been approved by members or incorporated into the estate’s internal regulations.

The Court emphasized that internal regulations may facilitate the administration of the estate but cannot enlarge the statutory powers granted by the Land Allocation Act or create rights that are inconsistent with the legislation.

The Land Allocation Act Is Mandatory Legislation:

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s characterization of the Land Allocation Act itself.

The Supreme Court expressly stated that the Act is legislation enacted to protect purchasers of land allocation projects and concerns matters of public order. As a result, private arrangements that are inconsistent with the statutory framework cannot prevail.

This means that even unanimous resolutions adopted by members of a housing estate juristic person cannot authorize practices that conflict with the Act.

The Court further reasoned that allowing construction security deposits to be retained as maintenance fees would effectively establish an alternative method of collecting maintenance fees that is not contemplated by the legislation. Such an arrangement would undermine the statutory scheme governing the management of housing estates.

Practical Implications:

The judgment has implications extending well beyond construction security deposits.

Housing estate juristic persons should review their bylaws, regulations, and resolutions to ensure that they remain consistent with the Land Allocation Act. Provisions that seek to create additional collection rights or modify statutory obligations may be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Developers and property managers should likewise review renovation procedures and security deposit arrangements to ensure that deposits are used solely for their intended purpose and are refunded promptly once the statutory conditions for their retention no longer exist.

The decision also serves as a reminder that internal governance documents—including estate regulations, bylaws, and members’ resolutions—cannot enlarge statutory powers or circumvent mandatory provisions enacted to protect purchasers.

Key Takeaways:

Housing estate juristic persons should review their internal regulations and operational practices to ensure they do not purport to exercise powers beyond those conferred by the Land Allocation Act.

Supreme Court Judgmentconfirms that internal regulations and members’ resolutions of a housing estate juristic person cannot override the Land Allocation Act.

The Land Allocation Act provides the exclusive statutory framework governing the collection and administration of maintenance fees.

Construction security deposits may only be used for their statutory purpose of securing compensation for damage arising from construction or renovation works.

Once renovation is completed without damage, the legal basis for retaining the security deposit ceases to exist.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Land Allocation Act is mandatory legislation enacted to protect purchasers and concerns matters of public order, meaning inconsistent private arrangements are unenforceable.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand signals a shift toward expenditure-based management of universal healthcare

Thailand’s universal healthcare system has long been regarded as one of the country’s most successful public policy achievements. However, increasing healthcare utilization, an aging population, rising treatment costs, and fiscal constraints are prompting policymakers to reconsider how the system should be financed over the long term.

Recent policy discussions within the Ministry of Public Health indicate that the focus is no longer solely on expanding healthcare benefits. Instead, the government appears to be moving toward a framework that emphasizes expenditure management, efficiency, and value-based healthcare while maintaining universal access to essential medical services.

Shift from expanding benefits to managing sustainability:

Thailand’s public healthcare system is primarily delivered through three government-funded schemes:

  • the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS);
  • the Social Security Scheme (SSS); and
  • the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS).

Although annual government appropriations for these schemes have continued to increase, healthcare expenditure has grown at an even faster pace due to demographic changes, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, advances in medical technology, and greater public expectations regarding access to treatment. Policymakers have therefore expressed concern that healthcare expenditure may outpace long-term fiscal capacity unless structural reforms are implemented.

Proposed expenditure management measures:

Current policy discussions suggest that future reforms may include greater reliance on expenditure controls rather than across-the-board budget increases.

Measures under consideration reportedly include:

  • expenditure ceilings for public hospitals;
  • tighter monitoring of hospital operating costs, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies;
  • wider use of digital technologies and data analytics to improve financial oversight;
  • periodic review of healthcare benefit packages to prioritize clinically effective and cost-effective services; and
  • broader adoption of value-based healthcare models that reward providers based on patient outcomes rather than service volume.

These initiatives reflect an effort to improve efficiency without fundamentally changing the principle of universal healthcare coverage.

Potential implications for healthcare providers:

Public hospitals may face increasing pressure to operate within fixed budgetary allocations while maintaining service quality. More sophisticated financial management, procurement practices, and clinical governance are therefore likely to become increasingly important.

Healthcare providers may also experience:

  • greater scrutiny of prescribing practices;
  • stronger emphasis on evidence-based treatment pathways;
  • expanded use of health technology assessment in reimbursement decisions; and
  • increased reporting and compliance obligations relating to cost management.

Private healthcare providers participating in government reimbursement programs may likewise experience closer oversight of reimbursement methodologies and service delivery standards.

Regulatory considerations:

While no legislative amendments have fundamentally altered Thailand’s universal healthcare framework, any future implementation of expenditure caps or revised reimbursement mechanisms will require careful alignment with existing legislation governing public health financing and healthcare entitlements.

Future regulatory developments may include:

  • revised payment methodologies;
  • updated reimbursement criteria;
  • enhanced procurement controls;
  • expanded digital monitoring of healthcare expenditure; and
  • revised administrative guidelines governing public healthcare providers.

Businesses operating in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, medical device, and digital health sectors should therefore continue to monitor policy developments, as changes in reimbursement and procurement practices may influence market access and commercial strategies.

Key takeaways:

  • Thailand is shifting its healthcare policy emphasis from expanding benefits toward improving financial sustainability.
  • Expenditure management and value-based healthcare are emerging as central policy themes.
  • Public hospitals are likely to face tighter budgetary controls and enhanced financial oversight.
  • Healthcare suppliers should anticipate increasing scrutiny of reimbursement, procurement, and cost-effectiveness.
  • Although universal healthcare remains intact, future reforms are expected to focus on preserving the system through more disciplined allocation of healthcare resources rather than unlimited expenditure growth.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

New Apostille Rules Simplify Thailand Working and Retirement Visa Renewal Documents Requirement

The Immigration Bureau has issued Immigration Bureau Order No. 122/2026 (the “Order”), amending certain documentary requirements under Immigration Bureau Order No. 12/2025 for applications for renewal of visa. The Order came into effect on 28 May 2026.

Previously, where certain prescribed documents were unavailable, applicants were generally required to authenticate them through notarization by a notary public, legalization by a Royal Thai Embassy or Royal Thai Consulate-General, and super-legalization by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The new Order introduces Apostille certification as an alternative method of authentication for specified documents.

Key Amendments

The amendments primarily benefit foreign nationals applying for the renewal of Non-Immigrant “B” (Business) and Non-Immigrant “O-A” (Retirement) categories. In particular, the changes are expected to benefit foreign nationals working for foreign companies operating in Thailand through their representative offices, regional offices, and branch offices set up in Thailand requiring renewal of their visa, for which the affidavits or certificates of incorporation relating to those offices are required to be submitted. The amendment also benefits foreign retirees required to submit health insurance documents or evidence of state welfare benefits issued or granted overseas.

Previously, such documents were generally required to be certified by the issuing authority and/or notarized, followed by legalization by a Royal Thai Embassy or Royal Thai Consulate-General and super-legalization by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The amendment streamlines this process by reducing the number of authentication steps required for eligible documents.

The amendments also address practical difficulties faced by representative offices, regional offices, and branch offices of foreign companies in obtaining certain corporate registration documents. In practice, the Department of Business Development (DBD) may not issue particular certificates in certain circumstances The revised requirements therefore provide greater flexibility where equivalent DBD-issued documents are unavailable.

Conclusion

The Order represents a practical modernization of Thailand’s immigration procedures by introducing Apostille certification as an alternative method of authenticating documents for certain business and retirement-based applications.

Although the amendments do not alter the substantive eligibility requirements of renewal of visa, they simplify documentary compliance, reduce reliance on multiple layers of consular legalization, and offer practical solutions for foreign business entities that may encounter difficulties obtaining certain certifications in Thailand. Overall, the changes are expected to make the immigration process more efficient for both foreign businesses and foreign retirees.

Key Takeaways

The changes reflect Thailand’s continuing movement toward

Apostille certification is now recognized as an alternative to traditional embassy legalization for certain business and retirement-based extension of stay applications.

The amendments simplify document authentication and reduce administrative burdens for eligible applicants.

Foreign nationals working with representative offices, regional offices, and branch offices in Thailand may benefit from greater flexibility where equivalent DBD-issued certifications are unavailable.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Billing Software and Electronic Invoicing: Understanding Thailand’s Digital Tax Compliance Framework

Executive Summary:

As governments continue to digitalize tax administration, businesses are increasingly expected to adopt electronic invoicing solutions that comply with evolving regulatory requirements. Although the terms billing software and electronic invoicing are often used interchangeably, they represent distinct concepts that serve different commercial and legal functions.

In Thailand, billing software is not subject to a dedicated statutory or regulatory framework. Businesses are generally free to select accounting, billing, or enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems that best support their commercial operations, provided they comply with the Revenue Code and other applicable laws. Electronic invoicing, by contrast, is governed by the Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt framework, which establishes the legal and technical requirements for issuing electronic tax invoices recognized for VAT purposes.

Understanding the distinction between these concepts is important for businesses implementing digital invoicing solutions. A billing system that efficiently generates commercial invoices does not necessarily satisfy the legal requirements for issuing electronic tax invoices. Businesses should therefore evaluate their invoicing systems not only from an operational perspective but also from a tax compliance standpoint.

Introduction:

Digital transformation has fundamentally changed the way businesses prepare invoices, maintain accounting records, and comply with tax obligations. Around the world, tax authorities have introduced electronic invoicing regimes to improve tax compliance, enhance transparency, and reduce administrative burdens for both taxpayers and regulators.

Although electronic invoicing has become an increasingly common feature of modern tax systems, countries have adopted different regulatory approaches. Some jurisdictions regulate the software used to generate invoices, while others focus on the legal validity and technical characteristics of the electronic tax documents themselves.

Thailand follows the latter approach. Rather than regulating billing software as a separate category of software, Thai law establishes a framework governing the issuance of electronic tax invoices through the Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt system. Consequently, businesses remain free to use their preferred accounting or ERP software, provided that the electronic tax documents generated by those systems comply with the applicable legal and technical requirements.

For businesses operating in Thailand, particularly multinational enterprises implementing global ERP platforms, understanding the distinction between billing software and electronic invoicing is essential. While both are integral components of modern financial management, they perform different functions and are subject to different legal considerations.

Billing Software:

Billing software generally refers to applications used by businesses to prepare invoices, calculate taxes, record payments, manage customer accounts, and maintain accounting records. These functions support day-to-day commercial operations and are commonly integrated into accounting software or ERP systems.

Unlike some jurisdictions that regulate invoicing software, Thailand does not currently impose a dedicated legal or regulatory regime governing billing software itself. There is no statutory requirement for billing software to be licensed, certified, or approved by the Revenue Department before it can be used by businesses. Instead, Thai law focuses on the legal sufficiency of the invoices and accounting records generated by the software.

This does not mean that businesses have complete discretion in how billing systems are used. Regardless of the software selected, businesses remain responsible for ensuring that invoices comply with the Revenue Code, VAT is correctly calculated where applicable, accounting records are properly maintained, and supporting documentation is available for inspection by the tax authorities.

Accordingly, compliance under Thai law depends not on the software itself, but on whether the business uses that software in a manner that satisfies its statutory obligations. A business may therefore choose from a wide range of commercial accounting platforms, cloud-based invoicing applications, or ERP systems without obtaining prior approval from the Revenue Department.

Electronic Invoicing:

Electronic invoicing serves a different purpose. Rather than facilitating internal billing processes, it establishes the legal framework under which electronic tax invoices are recognized for VAT purposes.

Thailand’s electronic invoicing regime is principally governed by the Revenue Code, supplemented by the Electronic Transactions Act, Ministerial Regulation No. 384, and Revenue Department notifications prescribing the technical standards for electronic tax documents. Collectively, these instruments enable tax invoices and receipts to be created, transmitted, and retained electronically while ensuring their authenticity, integrity, and reliability.

Businesses wishing to issue electronic tax invoices under the Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt framework must comply with prescribed legal and technical requirements. These include registration with the Revenue Department, generation of electronic tax documents in the prescribed format, use of appropriate electronic authentication mechanisms, transmission through approved channels where applicable, and maintenance of electronic records in accordance with the Revenue Department’s requirements.

An important characteristic of the Thai framework is that it regulates the electronic tax document rather than the accounting software used to produce it. Consequently, businesses may continue using their existing accounting or ERP systems, provided those systems are capable of generating electronic tax invoices that comply with the Revenue Department’s technical specifications. In practice, many businesses achieve this through system localization or integration with specialized e-Tax solutions or authorized service providers.

Thailand currently provides two principal electronic invoicing models. The e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt system is designed for businesses requiring full electronic integration, while the e-Tax Invoice by Email system provides a simplified alternative for eligible businesses. Although both systems enable businesses to issue legally recognized electronic tax invoices, they differ in their technical implementation and authentication methods.

Key Takeaways:

  • Thailand does not regulate billing software as a separate legal category or require billing software to be certified or approved by the Revenue Department.
  • The Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt framework governs the issuance of legally recognized electronic tax invoices and establishes the applicable technical and procedural requirements.
  • A commercial invoice generated by billing software does not automatically constitute an electronic tax invoice for VAT purposes.
  • Businesses implementing accounting or ERP systems should evaluate both operational functionality and compliance with Thailand’s e-Tax requirements.
  • Early coordination among finance, tax, legal, and information technology functions can help ensure a successful implementation of electronic invoicing while supporting long-term digital tax compliance.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

ETDA’s Proposed AI Sandbox Signals a New Phase of AI Governance

The Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has opened a public consultation on a draft notification establishing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Sandbox. Although the notification has not yet been adopted, it represents one of the clearest regulatory signals that Thailand is moving toward a structured governance framework for AI systems through a controlled testing environment.

For businesses developing or deploying AI solutions, the proposed AI Sandbox is more than a pilot initiative. It is likely to establish regulatory expectations that may influence future AI compliance standards across multiple sectors.

Why the AI Sandbox matters                                              

Regulatory sandboxes have long been used in the financial sector to facilitate innovation while allowing regulators to observe risks under controlled conditions. The proposed AI Sandbox extends this concept to AI technologies by providing an environment where AI systems can be tested before wider deployment.

Unlike traditional compliance regimes that focus primarily on post-deployment enforcement, an AI Sandbox emphasizes governance during the development and testing stages. This reflects an international regulatory trend toward proactive AI risk management.

Although participation in the Sandbox may initially be voluntary, organizations should not view it merely as an experimental program. Regulatory sandboxes frequently become the foundation for future best practices and may ultimately shape industry standards and supervisory expectations.

A shift toward risk-based AI governance

While the draft notification remains subject to consultation, it suggests that AI governance in Thailand is moving toward a risk-based model.

Businesses should expect greater emphasis on governance measures such as:

  • AI risk identification and assessment;
  • testing and validation before deployment;
  • documentation of AI models, datasets, and development processes;
  • human oversight over significant AI-assisted decisions;
  • ongoing monitoring throughout the AI lifecycle; and
  • governance mechanisms for accountability and incident management.

These principles are broadly consistent with international AI governance developments and demonstrate a growing expectation that organizations should be able to explain not only what an AI system does, but also how risks have been identified and managed.

Implications for businesses

The proposed framework has implications across numerous industries, particularly where AI systems influence commercial or operational decision-making.

  • Technology companies and SaaS providers
  • Software developers offering AI-enabled products may need to implement more formal governance processes throughout the product lifecycle. Technical documentation, testing records, model validation, and change management procedures could become increasingly important in demonstrating responsible AI practices.
  • Organizations that currently rely on informal development processes may eventually need governance structures comparable to those already used for cybersecurity and information security compliance.
  • Financial services and fintech
  • Financial institutions already operate within a highly regulated environment. AI governance requirements may become an additional layer of compliance where AI is used for credit scoring, fraud detection, investment services, customer onboarding, or automated decision-making.
  • Existing risk management frameworks may therefore need to expand to include AI-specific controls.
  • Healthcare and health technology
  • Healthcare providers and health technology companies using AI for diagnostics, treatment recommendations, clinical decision support, or patient management are likely to face heightened expectations regarding accuracy, validation, human supervision, and patient safety.
  • Testing within a controlled environment could become an important mechanism for demonstrating reliability before deployment.
  • HR technology
  • Organizations using AI in recruitment, employee evaluation, workforce management, or performance assessment should anticipate closer scrutiny of automated decision-making processes.
  • Transparent governance, human review, and measures to reduce discriminatory outcomes are likely to become increasingly significant compliance considerations.
  • Digital platforms
  • Platform operators deploying generative AI, recommendation algorithms, content moderation systems, or AI-powered customer services may also need stronger governance over system performance, monitoring, and accountability.
  • The ability to document how AI systems operate and respond to identified risks may become an important aspect of regulatory compliance.

Interaction with existing legal frameworks

Although the AI Sandbox is intended to facilitate innovation, participation is unlikely to exempt organizations from existing legal obligations.

Organizations testing AI systems would still be expected to comply with applicable laws, including those governing:

  • personal data protection under the Personal Data Protection Act;
  • electronic transactions;
  • cybersecurity obligations;
  • consumer protection;
  • intellectual property rights; and
  • sector-specific regulatory requirements.

For example, organizations using personal data for AI model training or testing should ensure that appropriate legal bases, transparency obligations, data security measures, and data subject rights continue to be observed.

Similarly, businesses developing generative AI applications should continue to assess potential intellectual property risks relating to training data, generated outputs, and ownership of AI-assisted content.

Preparing for future regulatory expectations

Although the draft notification has not yet entered into force, organizations should consider using the consultation period to evaluate their existing AI governance practices.

Practical steps may include:

  • identifying AI systems currently in operation;
  • classifying AI use cases according to potential risk;
  • documenting AI development and deployment processes;
  • establishing internal AI governance policies;
  • implementing human oversight for significant AI-assisted decisions;
  • reviewing contractual allocation of AI-related responsibilities with vendors and customers; and
  • ensuring that AI governance aligns with existing data protection and cybersecurity compliance programs.

Organizations that begin implementing these governance measures now are likely to be better positioned if the AI Sandbox becomes operational and if similar requirements are incorporated into future regulatory frameworks.

Looking ahead

The draft AI Sandbox notification demonstrates that Thai regulators are moving beyond high-level discussions about artificial intelligence and toward practical governance mechanisms.

Even if participation remains voluntary during its initial stages, the Sandbox is likely to influence regulatory expectations regarding responsible AI development and deployment. Businesses should therefore view the proposal not simply as a testing initiative, but as an indication of the governance standards that may shape future AI regulation.

Key takeaways

Businesses that prepare early are likely to be better positioned as AI governance requirements continue to evolve.

The proposed AI Sandbox represents a significant step toward a structured AI governance framework.

The initiative reflects a broader shift toward risk-based regulation and responsible AI development.

Organizations developing or deploying AI should begin strengthening governance, documentation, testing, and oversight processes.

Existing obligations under data protection, cybersecurity, consumer protection, and intellectual property laws will continue to apply during AI development and testing.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Super License Reform Moves to Final Stage Before Becoming Law

In our previous article, “Super License: The Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public,” we discussed the proposed overhaul of the administrative licensing regime and its potential to fundamentally modernize public services and regulatory approvals.

Super License: The Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public – The Legal Co., Ltd.

The legislative process has now reached a significant milestone. The Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public B.E. 2569 has been approved by Parliament and is currently awaiting publication in the Government Gazette before coming into force. Once effective, the new legislation will repeal the Facilitation of Licensing by Government Agencies Act B.E. 2558 (2015) and introduce a substantially broader and more integrated framework for government licensing and public services.

A Shift from Licensing Control to Public Service Facilitation:

The new legislation reflects a significant policy shift in the administration of regulatory approvals. Rather than focusing solely on licensing procedures, it establishes a broader framework designed to improve the overall delivery of government services by emphasizing efficiency, transparency, digital integration, and reduced administrative burdens.

The scope of the law extends beyond traditional licensing procedures to cover registrations, notifications, approvals, and various public services provided by government agencies. This broader application aims to establish consistent administrative standards across the public sector while making interactions with government agencies more predictable and user-friendly.

Greater Transparency Through Mandatory Public Handbooks:

One of the most significant reforms is the enhanced requirement for government agencies to prepare comprehensive public handbooks.

These handbooks must clearly specify:

  • application procedures;
  • required documents;
  • statutory processing periods;
  • applicable fees;
  • approval criteria;
  • conditions imposed on applicants; and
  • written guidelines governing the exercise of official discretion.

Requiring agencies to disclose how discretion will be exercised represents an important development. It is intended to reduce inconsistent decision-making, improve legal certainty, and minimize opportunities for arbitrary administrative actions.

Digital Government and “Once-Only” Documentation:

The legislation further advances the government’s digital transformation policy by requiring agencies to utilize electronic information already available within government systems.

Where government agencies already possess information through interconnected databases, applicants generally should not be required to submit the same documents repeatedly. This “once-only” principle is expected to reduce paperwork significantly and improve the overall efficiency of administrative procedures.

The legislation also supports greater use of electronic application systems and centralized digital service platforms.

The Super License Mechanism:

Perhaps the most anticipated feature is the introduction of the Super License mechanism.

For business activities designated by the Cabinet, applicants will be able to obtain a principal license that automatically covers related subsidiary approvals normally issued by multiple government agencies. Instead of pursuing numerous sequential approvals, businesses will be able to complete much of the licensing process through a single application.

Although the categories of businesses eligible for the Super License mechanism will be determined through subsequent implementing measures, the reform is expected to benefit sectors that traditionally require multiple regulatory approvals, including manufacturing, hospitality, energy, and certain service industries.

The practical effectiveness of this mechanism will ultimately depend upon the implementing regulations and the level of coordination among participating agencies.

Faster Licensing Procedures:

The legislation introduces several measures intended to shorten administrative timelines.

Government agencies will be required to review applications promptly upon receipt, notify applicants immediately if documents are incomplete, and adhere to published processing periods. Where delays become unavoidable, agencies must notify applicants and explain the reasons for any extension.

In addition, the legislation provides for:

  • centralized application centers;
  • electronic submission and tracking systems;
  • expedited processing channels for eligible matters;
  • simplified renewal procedures for certain licenses; and
  • multilingual services where appropriate.

Collectively, these measures are designed to reduce procedural uncertainty while improving the overall applicant experience.

Deemed Approval for Certain Applications:

One of the most closely watched reforms is the introduction of a form of deemed approval.

For specified categories of lower-risk activities, where the responsible agency fails to complete consideration within the prescribed timeframe and does not properly extend the review period, the application may be treated as approved by operation of law.

This mechanism is intended to encourage administrative efficiency while providing greater certainty for businesses. However, it is not expected to apply universally, particularly where public safety, environmental protection, national security, or other significant public interests require substantive regulatory review.

Provisional Operations for Low-Risk Activities:

The legislation also introduces mechanisms allowing certain low-risk businesses to commence operations through notification or registration before obtaining full approval.

This represents a notable departure from the traditional approach, under which businesses generally must wait until all approvals have been formally issued before commencing operations. The reform seeks to facilitate earlier economic activity while maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight.

Increased Accountability for Government Agencies:

The legislation imposes stronger obligations on public officials responsible for licensing and service delivery.

Failure to comply with statutory procedures—such as requesting unnecessary documents, failing to meet prescribed timelines without justification, or otherwise violating procedural requirements—may constitute disciplinary misconduct.

These accountability measures reinforce the legislation’s broader objective of improving public confidence in administrative decision-making.

What Businesses Should Do Next:

Although the legislation has completed the parliamentary process, businesses should recognize that it will not become effective until publication in the Government Gazette.

In the meantime, companies that regularly interact with licensing authorities should begin assessing how the new framework may affect their operations. Particular attention should be paid to businesses that currently require approvals from multiple agencies, as they may eventually benefit from the Super License mechanism once implementing regulations identify eligible sectors.

Businesses should also monitor forthcoming subordinate legislation, ministerial regulations, and administrative guidelines, which will determine many of the practical details governing implementation.

Key Takeaways:

  • Businesses should begin reviewing their regulatory compliance strategies and monitor the issuance of subordinate legislation that will govern implementation of the new regime.
  • Parliament has approved the new Act, which is now awaiting publication in the Government Gazette before becoming effective.
  • The legislation replaces the existing licensing facilitation framework with a broader law covering licensing, registrations, notifications, approvals, and public services.
  • The new framework emphasizes transparency, digital government, reduced administrative burdens, and standardized procedures.
  • The Super License mechanism has the potential to significantly simplify regulatory approvals for businesses requiring multiple licenses, although further implementing regulations will determine its practical scope.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Related Articles: Super License: The Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s New Investigation Policy on Nominees Matter

The Government of Thailand has launched a nationwide investigation campaign targeting the illegal use of Thai “nominees” — local Thai citizens hired by foreign investors to circumvent restrictions on land ownership and business operations. Enforcement has been concentrated in Thailand’s major economic and tourism hubs, including Phuket, Chiang Mai, and Bangkok.

Action Plan and Policy

The campaign reflects a government priority to ensure fair competition and transparency within the local economy. It is being implemented jointly by 23 Thai government departments, including the Royal Thai Police, the Department of Business Development (DBD), and the Department of Lands. Under the action plan, authorities are re-examining corporate registrations, tracing the source of funds used by Thai shareholders, and reviewing companies in tourist areas with suspicious or unusual ownership structures.

Current Status and Practices

Enforcement efforts to date have produced significant results. Officials report that 172 land plots in the southern economic provinces — covering approximately 51 acres and valued at roughly 1.67 billion baht — are currently under investigation. As a result, courts have issued 107 arrest warrants, leading to 65 arrests of Thai nominees and foreign investors so far.

Government officials have disclosed that Israeli nationals represent the largest group implicated in these illegal nominee arrangements, followed by French, Russian, and other European nationals. The sectors most frequently affected include hotels, resorts, restaurants, and cannabis shops. A common scheme involves registering low-income Thai employees or local citizens as majority shareholders holding more than 50% of company shares — an arrangement that is often easy to identify, since these individuals typically lack the personal savings or income needed to fund such large-scale investments.

The legal consequences of enforcement are becoming increasingly severe. In recent rulings in Surat Thani — the southern province home to the popular tourist destination Koh Phangan — courts have sentenced convicted nominees and foreign investors to prison terms and fines, and ordered them to divest illegally acquired land within a strict timeframe of 180 days to one year.

Future Steps and Business Implications

This intensified enforcement signals a permanent shift toward stricter regulatory oversight of foreign investment in Thailand. The government is now expanding investigations beyond economic and tourism centers to other regions nationwide, aiming for comprehensive enforcement against nominee structures across the country.

The interagency screening process will introduce stricter background and financial checks at both the company registration and land-transfer stages. As a result, foreign investors should expect more rigorous scrutiny regarding the source of their Thai partners’ investment funds. The government also plans to involve the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) to freeze and seize bank accounts and assets linked to nominee networks.

Key Takeaways

  • AMLO will be engaged to freeze bank accounts and seize assets connected to nominee networks.
  • Thailand is enforcing its new anti-nominee policy nationwide, with particular focus on — but not limited to — major economic provinces.
  • The 23-department investigation framework enables deeper scrutiny of business funding and shareholder backgrounds, meaning investors should anticipate more intensive compliance checks.
  • Investigations are concentrated on, but not limited to, hotels, resorts, restaurants, and cannabis shops with suspicious Thai shareholding structures.
  • Courts are issuing prison sentences, fines, and mandatory orders to divest illegally acquired land within one year.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Draft Immigration Act and Hotel Act: A Major Step Towards Digitalization and Regulatory Reform

Background

Thailand is taking another significant step in its regulatory reform agenda through proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, B.E. 2522 (1979), and the Hotel Act, B.E. 2547 (2004). The draft legislation forms part of the government’s broader Regulatory Guillotine initiative, which seeks to eliminate unnecessary legal requirements, simplify administrative procedures, and reduce compliance burdens for both businesses and the public.

The proposed amendments are also intended to enhance Thailand’s competitiveness by creating a more foreigner-friendly regulatory environment that encourages investment, facilitates tourism, and supports economic growth. At the same time, the reforms modernize enforcement by replacing criminal fines for minor regulatory violations with administrative (disciplinary) fines, consistent with Section 77 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.

1. Draft Immigration Act (No. ..), B.E. ….

1.1 Modernization of Administrative Structure

Draft Sections 3 and 4 update the terminology used throughout the Immigration Act to reflect the current organizational structure of the Royal Thai Police. The definition of “Director-General” is repealed, and all references to the “Director-General” are replaced with “Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police.” In addition, the term “Immigration Division” is updated to “Immigration Bureau.”

1.2 Removal of Outdated and Redundant Reporting Requirements

One of the most significant reforms is the reduction of reporting obligations imposed on foreign nationals.

Under Draft Section 5, which amends Section 37 of the Immigration Act:

  • Section 37(1) is repealed, removing the prohibition on temporary residents engaging in employment. Because employment of foreigners is already governed by the Foreign Business Act, B.E. 2542 (1999), and the Emergency Decree on the Management of Foreign Workers, B.E. 2560 (2017), this provision is considered redundant.
  • Section 37(2) is repealed, abolishing the requirement for foreigners to notify immigration officials of their place of residence. This obligation duplicates the TM30 reporting requirement already imposed on property owners, possessors, and hotel operators.
  • Sections 37(3) and 37(4) are repealed, eliminating the requirements to report changes of residence and temporary travel to another province exceeding 24 hours. These obligations had already been exempted in practice under the Royal Thai Police Regulations B.E. 2563 (2020).
  • Section 37(5) is retained, preserving the existing 90-day reporting requirement for long-term foreign residents. However, the Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police will be empowered to prescribe more flexible reporting methods, procedures, and timeframes.

1.3 Elimination of Duplicate Hotel Reporting

Draft Section 6 repeals Section 38 of the Immigration Act, removing the requirement for hotel operators to submit duplicate reports to immigration authorities. Hotel managers will instead report guest information solely under the Hotel Act, through a single, unified reporting mechanism.

1.4 Flexible Permanent Residence Quotas

Draft Section 7 repeals Section 40 of the Immigration Act, removing the existing statutory quota of 100 permanent residence approvals per nationality and 50 approvals for stateless persons each year. Annual quotas will instead be determined by the government based on Thailand’s prevailing economic and social circumstances.

1.5 Reform of Penalties

Draft Sections 8 and 9 repeal Sections 75, 76, and 77 of the Immigration Act, replacing criminal penalties for minor reporting violations with administrative (disciplinary) fines. This amendment reflects the policy set out in Section 77 of the Constitution, under which criminal sanctions are reserved for serious misconduct.

1.6 Transitional Provisions

Draft Section 10 provides that existing procedures relating to residence reporting, address notifications, and permanent residence applications will remain in effect for a transitional period of up to one year after the Draft Act comes into force.

1.7 Administration of the Act

Draft Section 11 designates the responsible Minister to oversee implementation and ensure continuity throughout the transition period.

2. Draft Hotel Act (No. ..), B.E. ….

2.1 Alignment of Definitions

Draft Section 3 introduces the definition of “Foreigner” into the Hotel Act, adopting the same meaning as under the Immigration Act to ensure consistency between the two statutes.

2.2 Digitalization of Hotel Guest Registration

Draft Section 4, which repeals and replaces Sections 35 and 36 of the Hotel Act, modernizes hotel guest registration by requiring hotel managers to maintain guest records electronically.

Hotel managers will be required to collect only the information necessary for regulatory purposes and to submit guest registration data electronically to the Registrar every 24 hours. The Registrar will then automatically transmit information relating to foreign guests to the Immigration Bureau, establishing a single-window reporting mechanism.

The amendment also authorizes the Department of Provincial Administration (DOPA) and the Registrar to compile and disclose guest registration information to other government agencies, where such disclosure is authorized by law and serves a legitimate public purpose.

In addition, Draft Section 9 requires DOPA to establish and maintain the electronic registration platform.

2.3 Transition to Paperless Administration

Draft Section 5 repeals Section 37 of the Hotel Act, eliminating the requirement for hotel operators to obtain replacement paper registers where records have been lost or destroyed. This amendment supports the transition to a fully electronic registration system.

2.4 Reform of Penalties

Draft Sections 7 and 8 amend the penalty provisions by replacing criminal sanctions with administrative (disciplinary) fines for violations of Sections 35 and 36. Part 2 of the Act is also renamed to reflect the revised enforcement framework.

2.5 Transitional Provisions

Draft Sections 10 and 11 permit hotels to continue using existing registration methods and forms, including the traditional Ro.Ro. 4 register, until the new electronic system and prescribed digital forms become fully operational.

2.6 Entry into Force

The responsible Minister will oversee implementation throughout the transitional period. The Draft Act will enter into force 30 days after its publication in the Royal Gazette.

Conclusion

The Draft Immigration Act and the Draft Hotel Act together represent a significant milestone in Thailand’s regulatory reform agenda. By eliminating overlapped requirements, introducing integrated digital administration, and replacing criminal penalties with proportionate regulatory fines, the proposed legislation seeks to create a more efficient legal framework while maintaining effective immigration control.

If enacted, these reforms are expected to reduce compliance costs for businesses, simplify immigration procedures for foreign nationals, improve inter-agency coordination, and strengthen Thailand’s attractiveness as a destination for international investors, skilled professionals, and tourists.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Draft Laws on the Extension and Expansion of Tax Measures Supporting Electronic Tax Systems

In the context of accelerating digital adoption worldwide, the Thai Revenue Department of the Ministry of Finance (the “RD“) is advancing Thailand’s digital transformation of tax administration and services by proposing two draft laws to the Cabinet on 16 June 2026. The Cabinet approved both draft laws in principle, following the affirmation of the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), the Budget Bureau, and the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (the “ETDA“). The RD positions these draft laws as key mechanisms to reinforce the longstanding effort to promote electronic tax systems (the “e-Tax Systems”), encompassing e-Tax Invoice, e-Receipt, and e-Withholding Tax. The two draft laws are as follows:

  • Draft Royal Decree issued under the Revenue Code governing the Exemption from Revenue Taxes (No. B.E. … (the “Draft Royal Decree“); and
  • Draft Ministerial Regulations issued under the Revenue Code governing the Income Taxes (No. ) B.E. … (the “Draft Ministerial Regulations“).

Together, the two draft laws will broaden the scope of eligibility for tax incentives and extend the implementation period of existing tax measures relating to e-Tax Systems, as currently prescribed under the Royal Decree issued under the Revenue Code governing the Exemption from Revenue Taxes (No. 766) B.E. 2566 (2023) (the “Royal Decree No. 766”) and the Ministerial Regulations issued under the Revenue Code governing the Income Taxes (No. 389) B.E. 2566 (2023) (the “Ministerial Regulations No. 389”), respectively. In addition, the proposed drafts are designed to encourage greater cooperation from the private sectors — specifically, business operators acting as service providers of e-Tax Systems (the “Service Providers“) — by offering tax incentives to offset the costs associated with meeting the ETDA’s security standards and investing in the requisite electronic infrastructure. This is intended to reduce the financial burden on qualifying entities, simplify tax administration for taxpayers with limited familiarity with digital systems, and improve the overall efficiency of e-Tax Systems.

Tax Measures under Royal Decree No. 766

The measures promoting investment in e-Tax Systems were introduced under Royal Decree No. 766 and were applicable from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025. Companies or juristic partnerships that acted as Service Providers of e-Tax Invoice and e-Receipt services, e-Filing services, e-Stamp Duty services, or special account data collection services for electronic platforms were entitled to a corporate income tax exemption equivalent to twice the amount of qualifying investment expenses. Eligible expenses are divided into three main categories, each subject to specific terms and conditions:

  1. Expenses from investment in e-Tax Invoice and e-Receipt systems — comprising expenses incurred in the preparation of electronic data collection systems and the acquisition of software, computers, related electronic equipment, and other devices used to create, transmit, receive, or store such data. Excluded from this category are repair expenses for such equipment and expenses arising from electronic data operations that fall outside the scope of e-Tax Invoice and e-Receipt system services.
  2. Expenses from investment in e-Withholding Tax systems — comprising expenses incurred in the preparation of tax remittance systems and the acquisition of software, electronic certificate storage devices, computers, or other devices used for tax remittance. Repair expenses for such equipment are excluded.
  3. Fees for the use of e-Tax Invoice, e-Receipt, and e-Withholding Tax systems — comprising service charges or fees paid to Service Providers for the preparation or transmission of electronic data, electronic certificates, or electronic storage services for tax remittance through such systems.

Pursuant to the Royal Decree No. 766, assets or funds utilized under categories 1 and 2 above must satisfy all of the following criteria:

a. Must not have been previously used;
b. Must be eligible for depreciation deductions and must be acquired and available by 31 December 2027;
c. Must be located in Thailand;
d. Must be used in the business for not fewer than three consecutive accounting periods beginning from the first accounting period in which such assets or funds are acquired and available;
e. Must not be eligible for any other tax benefits under applicable law; and
f. Must not be eligible for tax exemptions, whether in whole or in part, under investment promotion law, the law on enhancement of competitiveness in target industries, or Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) laws.

Draft Royal Decree and Key Amendments

Since the implementation of the tax measures under Royal Decree No. 766, Service Providers have faced increasing financial burdens arising from their legal obligation to comply with the ETDA’s security standards governing the management of electronic data received from taxpayers. These obligations entail additional costs for electronic data system audits and assessments conducted by the ETDA. According to data collected by the RD and other relevant authorities, such requirements have resulted in average annual costs of approximately THB 250,000 per Service Provider.

The Draft Royal Decree seeks to support Thailand’s digital transformation objectives while preserving the existing investment promotion framework, including the same terms, conditions, and exclusions established under Royal Decree No. 766. Accordingly, the draft law retains the three categories of eligible expenses described above. The key amendments introduced are: (1) an extension of the implementation period from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2027, and (2) the introduction of a new fourth category of eligible expense, as follows:

  1. Fees for the use of information system audit and assessment services — comprising fees or service charges paid by a Service Provider to the ETDA for the audit and assessment of electronic data systems used in connection with the provision of e-Tax Invoice and e-Receipt services, e-Filing services, e-Stamp Duty services, or special account data submission services for electronic platform operators.

Under category 4, Service Providers will be entitled to a tax exemption equivalent to twice the amount of fees paid to the ETDA for information system audit and assessment services. This measure is designed to alleviate the financial burden arising from compliance requirements, encourage greater private-sector participation in the RD’s digital tax ecosystem, and ultimately enhance service quality for taxpayers and strengthen Thailand’s competitiveness in the digital economy.

Tax Measures under Ministerial Regulations No. 389

Under Ministerial Regulations No. 389, measures promoting the use of the e-Withholding Tax system were applicable from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025. These measures provided tax benefits in the form of reduced withholding tax and income tax rates for both juristic persons (excluding foundations and associations) and individuals making payments through the e-Withholding Tax system. Specifically, the applicable withholding tax rate was reduced from 5% to 3%, and the applicable income tax rate was reduced from 2% to 1%. The reduced income tax rates applied to the following categories of assessable income under the Revenue Code:

  1. Juristic persons (excluding foundations and associations) — income derived from employment duties or positions, including commission fees and bonuses; goodwill and royalty fees; rental income from assets; income from liberal professions; income from contracting services; and income from hire-of-work services, prizes from contests, competitions, or lucky draws, and other service income.
  2. Individuals — rental income from assets; income from liberal professions; income from contracting services; income from hire-of-work services, prizes from contests, competitions, or lucky draws, and other service income; and income of public entertainers resident in Thailand.

Draft Ministerial Regulations and Key Amendments

The measures implemented under Ministerial Regulations No. 389 have materially contributed to Thailand’s digital transformation and have significantly encouraged taxpayers — including businesses, foreign entities, and individuals — to manage their withholding tax and income tax obligations through the RD’s electronic platform. In recognition of this success, the RD has proposed a new Draft Ministerial Regulations to extend the application of these measures for an additional two years, from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2027.

Pending the entry into force of the Draft Ministerial Regulations, the Ministry of Finance issued the Notification of the Ministry of Finance Regarding the Extension of the Deadline for Additional Fund Remittance through the e-Withholding Tax System, dated 6 February 2026. This notification serves as an interim measure to bridge the gap until the new regulations take effect, permitting taxpayers who made payments through the e-Withholding Tax system between 1 January and 31 March 2026 to remit any additional withholding tax by 30 April 2026, thereby preserving access to the reduced rates during the transitional period.

Summary and Key Takeaways

Businesses are advised to monitor the formal enactment of these draft laws to assess their eligibility for the extended tax incentives.

The RD has proposed two draft laws aimed at reducing compliance costs and encouraging greater private-sector participation in Thailand’s digital tax ecosystem.

The Cabinet, together with other relevant government authorities, has approved in principle both the Draft Royal Decree and the Draft Ministerial Regulations, which extend tax incentives for the use of e-Tax Systems through 31 December 2027.

The Draft Royal Decree introduces a new category of eligible expenses, allowing Service Providers to claim a tax exemption equal to twice the ETDA audit and assessment fees incurred.

Tax incentives under Royal Decree No. 766 for investments in, and the use of, e-Tax Systems — including e-Invoice, e-Receipt, and e-Withholding Tax — will continue under the extended regime.

The Draft Ministerial Regulations extend the reduced withholding tax and income tax rates applicable to qualifying payments made through the e-Withholding Tax system.

Pending the new regulations, the Ministry of Finance has issued an interim notification to preserve access to e-Withholding Tax incentives during the transitional period.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles