Thread: Abhisit queries 'no tax' for Thaksin kids

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

And if you recall, laws were played

but its been done before ......

Originally Posted by DroversDog

at the time had higher foreign ownership

does that include the burmese generals' shares in shinsat ?

I am sure if you are curious enough you could ask the Thai Stock Exchange if this is the case.

Originally Posted by DroversDog

I am sure if you are curious enough you could ask the Thai Stock Exchange if this is the case.

and if it is a company named "sample bitch" ? worth about 50 satang I would think

Originally Posted by baldrick

and if it is a company named "sample bitch" ? worth about 50 satang I would think

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

However, another official said it was possible that the Revenue Department may decide to drop the case altogether, under the argument that the Ample Rich transactions involved a shuffling of shares between accounts all under the control of Mr Thaksin himself, with no actual sale occurring. Thus, no tax liability was to be assessed.

Sounds like this could be "game set and match"?

Ohh dear can't wait to hear the wailing and knashing of teeth from the anti Taki brigade on here!

^^

Originally Posted by Bkk Post

The Revenue Department later asked for guidance from the Finance Ministry, which in the end agreed with the decision not to appeal against the Tax Court ruling.

As mentioned before, an exact timeline would be useful - particularly so as to identify the date of this Finance Ministry involvement. Even so, it seems clear that the date falls within Korn's time as Finance Minister and that he could have at least blocked agreement with the decision - if there was a sound basis for doing so. He didn't - but now uses Facebook to raise objections.

^^^ It is a bizarre case, did the authorities in their fervour/zeal of trying to get Thaksin, actually place themselves in a hole of their own creation, by not going after his children, or were there certain people busy at work within the authorities who set this up to make sure the tax would be avoided. People who may be in the government now....

Regardless, there is tax to pay. No one is going to pay it. That's fucked up.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

However, another official said it was possible that the Revenue Department may decide to drop the case altogether, under the argument that the Ample Rich transactions involved a shuffling of shares between accounts all under the control of Mr Thaksin himself, with no actual sale occurring. Thus, no tax liability was to be assessed.

Sounds like this could be "game set and match"?

Ohh dear can't wait to hear the wailing and knashing of teeth from the anti Taki brigade on here!

Nice to see that you are happy with a Prime Minister getting away with tax avoidance, as that is what he was at the time. And not just a few baht either. 11 Billion.

You do have morals and ethics, right? Or do they only apply to those who you disagree with (simply put, as you are rather simple, when my guy abuses his power, it is okay, when others I don't like/disagree with abuse their power it isn't okay).

It seems some here are blind to criminal acts, when it is "their guy" doing the acts. You couldn't make this up.

SD Are you really that slow or you just can't read!

The transaction, done through the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), was made without capital gains tax under a long-standing exemption on individual share sales made in the market.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Regardless, there is tax to pay. No one is going to pay it. That's fucked up.

Correct there was no tax to pay, not only for Thaksin but for everybody else who dabbles in the thai stock market.

The original idea to slug the children for the tax was because the shares were given (at a nominal price) to them by Thaksin outside of the stock exchange. This law is there to stop companies offsetting taxable wages with shares, rather then taxing parents giving assets to their children.

Look they tried, and they can't pin anything on him with regard to this.
I consider it a failure of moral leadership on Thaksin's part, but it has been found to be legal.
That said, I'd be quite happy to see the State hang on to his money personally. The Rule of Law may preclude it though.
So rather than working on making the Democrats into a worthy Democratic alternative, lets just keep bitching about it shall we? Thailands sore losers.

Originally Posted by sabang

I consider it a failure of moral leadership on Thaksin's part, but it has been found to be legal.

The evidence was there at the beginning that this case was a total beat up. Thaksin should have passed the ownership of his shares to his children when he went into office.

Actually Thai law needs to change allowing them to keep all shares, but they must abstain from voting where a conflict of interest may occur and they must declare a conflict of interest in every debate, committee they are on and even in interviews with the press. Putting it all out and into the open is far better then the current smoke and mirrors which must be played by all.

^^ But Sabang, the Democrats aren't going to be a democratic alternative. Not now, and probably not ever. I think enough proof is there to demonstrate this already.

Thailand needs another party. The Dem's aren't it. They are reasonable in opposition, but that's it. They had a chance, their colours were shown, they failed. Miserably.

You do raise a valid point though. If the only choice is Pheu Thai (and it is, but not a good one), then when will we see a truly democratic party come to the fore here? Because as it stands, there is no one and nothing on the horizon. The Democrat's have reverted back to type, with the same bunch of people (and links) who failed so miserably last time. No hope there.

So, sure, Pheu Thai may well be the best choice for now...but they aren't a good choice. As i wrote a long time ago, the people of Thailand have a choice of pretty crap or really crap, but either way, they are going to get crap.

Originally Posted by DroversDog

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

However, another official said it was possible that the Revenue Department may decide to drop the case altogether, under the argument that the Ample Rich transactions involved a shuffling of shares between accounts all under the control of Mr Thaksin himself, with no actual sale occurring. Thus, no tax liability was to be assessed.

Sounds like this could be "game set and match"?

Ohh dear can't wait to hear the wailing and knashing of teeth from the anti Taki brigade on here!

Nice to see that you are happy with a Prime Minister getting away with tax avoidance, as that is what he was at the time. And not just a few baht either. 11 Billion.

You do have morals and ethics, right? Or do they only apply to those who you disagree with (simply put, as you are rather simple, when my guy abuses his power, it is okay, when others I don't like/disagree with abuse their power it isn't okay).

It seems some here are blind to criminal acts, when it is "their guy" doing the acts. You couldn't make this up.

SD Are you really that slow or you just can't read!

The transaction, done through the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), was made without capital gains tax under a long-standing exemption on individual share sales made in the market.

I can read and I read it. I was making another point...about changing the foreign ownership laws just prior to the sale. Must be nice being PM.

You may apologise at your leisure.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^^ But Sabang, the Democrats aren't going to be a democratic alternative. Not now, and probably not ever. I think enough proof is there to demonstrate this already.

Thailand needs another party. The Dem's aren't it. They are reasonable in opposition, but that's it. They had a chance, their colours were shown, they failed. Miserably.

You do raise a valid point though. If the only choice is Pheu Thai (and it is, but not a good one), then when will we see a truly democratic party come to the fore here? Because as it stands, there is no one and nothing on the horizon. The Democrat's have reverted back to type, with the same bunch of people (and links) who failed so miserably last time. No hope there.

So, sure, Pheu Thai may well be the best choice for now...but they aren't a good choice. As i wrote a long time ago, the people of Thailand have a choice of pretty crap or really crap, but either way, they are going to get crap.

Actually they have plenty of choices. The biggest problem is that many of the small/medium parties do not want to become too large because at the moment they can always be in government by joining a winning coalition.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Not now, and probably not ever.

I consider that very negative thinking SD.
The first thing they need to do is start beefing up their Provincial representation- I'm not talking about electioneering (the only time you hear from them), but a permanent presence with people that will listen, and report. Something they have blatantly neglected until now.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

but they aren't a good choice.

I'll evaluate that in real time personally, based on results. I have to say, any democratic choice even in the west seems bastardised these days.

incidentally, i'd love for there to be three real democratic choices- but I don't see it happening. Nobody has been able to set up a viable third party in the UK, Australia or US, ever. I believe it is the same in Europe. Now more than ever, Democracy calls out for a third alternative- but it is not forthcoming.

Originally Posted by sabang

incidentally, i'd love for there to be three real democratic choices- but I don't see it happening. Nobody has been able to set up a viable third party in the UK, Australia or US, ever. I believe it is the same in Europe. Now more than ever, Democracy calls out for a third alternative- but it is not forthcoming.

In GB the Liberals could be the third party if the election laws were not so much stacked against them with the majority rule by constituency.

In Germany the Green Party is fast becoming the third big player. SHUDDER!

Oh well, it appears the people that felt threatened by the military government are again working... and feel free to tell what is what.

"The transaction, done through the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), was made without capital gains tax" Your BKK Post. There is no tax on stock exchange deals made on open market in Thailand. For Thaksin or anyone else involved in stock trading. I suppose you dont have any shares - except of TAN and Yellow Shirt Co-op - so you might not be familiar with this.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The Bangkok Post expanded their earlier report....

Bangkok Post : Korn presses officials to chase Thaksin for taxes

Korn presses officials to chase Thaksin for taxes

Revenue Dept slighted over sale of Shin Corp

• Published: 10/08/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

Revenue officials have been urged to pursue a tax claim against former premier Thaksin Shinawatra for profits gained from the 2006 sale of Shin Corp shares to Temasek Holdings.

Former finance minister Korn Chatikavanij slammed the Revenue Department for its failure to take action after he had asked it several times to clarify its position.

The Finance Ministry this week formally acknowledged it would not appeal a judgement by the Tax Court to dismiss a 12-billion-baht tax assessment against Pinthongta and Panthongtae Shinawatra for the Shin Corp sale. It is not known when the Tax Court actually submitted its judgement notice to the Revenue Department. By law, the department would have 60 days to appeal after receiving the notice.

Mr Korn said he had asked the Revenue Department for clarification on the issue several times over the past several months with no clear reply.

The Tax Court, in a ruling on Dec 29, 2010, argued that Ms Pinthongta and Mr Panthongtae were not the actual owners of the Shin Corp shares but were instead acting as nominees for their father, Thaksin.

The ruling was in line with a judgement made early last year by the Supreme Court, which found Thaksin guilty of conflict of interest rules and corruption for enacting policies that benefited Shin Corp during his time as prime minister. The Supreme Court ordered the confiscation of 46 billion baht from the Shinawatra family, based on the gains in the value of Shin Corp shares from the date Thaksin took office in 2001 to when the Temasek deal was made in January 2006.

But Mr Korn told the Bangkok Post that the Tax Court decision does not obviate the fact that the sale of Shin Corp shares did result in capital gains for Thaksin that should be liable for taxes.

"There is no question that the share transaction did occur. So who is liable for taxes? The Revenue Department must pursue this question," he said.

"I am not really upset about the decision to not appeal against Ms Pinthongta and Mr Panthongtae. But who must be held responsible?"

On Jan 20, 2006, Ample Rich Investments, a holding company registered in the British Virgin Islands, sold 329.2 million Shin Corp shares to Ms Pinthongta and Mr Panthongtae for one baht each. The next business day, the pair sold off the Shin shares on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) to Singapore's Temasek Holdings for 49.25 baht each, resulting in a gain of nearly 16 billion baht.

Under the tax code, capital gains are waived for individual transactions made through the SET. Tax liability however is assessed for capital gains from transactions made outside of the exchange. The Revenue Department argued that as the Shinawatra children received the shares at a lower-than-market price, taxes should be assessed on the benefits received, namely the difference in value between the sale from Ample Rich to the children and the funds received from the Temasek sale.

But after the Supreme Court in February 2010 found that Shin Corp was actually owned by Thaksin, his children changed their defence strategy before the Tax Court and claimed that as they were not the owners of the shares, they should not be subject to taxes.

Thaksin had earlier denied ownership of the Shin Corp shares through Ample Rich, presumably to avoid charges of asset concealment or conflicts of interest. The two Shinawatra children had also originally testified in the Tax Court that they were the original owners and denied acting as proxies for their father.

In any case, the decision by the Finance Ministry to not pursue a tax case against Ms Pinthongta or Mr Panthongtae will not result in any refunds or payments by the state, as the tax claim was filed by the Revenue Department against the assets seized and confiscated by the Assets Scrutiny Committee and later by the Supreme Court. The Revenue Department will release about 200 million baht in cash and another one billion in personal assets owned by the two Shinawatra children which had been ordered frozen pending the outcome of the tax case.

A Finance Ministry official said given the Supreme Court judgement, the tax case against the Shinawatra children was misplaced as they were not the actual beneficiaries of the share sale.

"Basically, the Revenue Department has to go after the persons who were actually liable," the official said.

However, another official said it was possible that the Revenue Department may decide to drop the case altogether, under the argument that the Ample Rich transactions involved a shuffling of shares between accounts all under the control of Mr Thaksin himself, with no actual sale occurring. Thus, no tax liability was to be assessed.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Funny as hell that you 3 are defending what is in anyone's book a blatant abuse of power. That others do it is a failed argument.

typical right wing authoritarian thinking, do as I say, not as I do. Double standards is their MO.

Originally Posted by sabang

I am defending, and always will, the peoples Right of Suffrage.

glad to see you are a strong supporter of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

Originally Posted by sabang

Nobody has been able to set up a viable third party in the UK, Australia or US, ever. I believe it is the same in Europe.

you are misinformed, as usual, Europe has a lot of viable smaller parties constantly challenging the main ones

Originally Posted by nostromo

"The transaction, done through the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), was made without capital gains tax" Your BKK Post. There is no tax on stock exchange deals made on open market in Thailand. For Thaksin or anyone else involved in stock trading. I suppose you dont have any shares - except of TAN and Yellow Shirt Co-op - so you might not be familiar with this.

This is true for Individuals, not for companies. In the case of "Ample Rich", it was a corporation, located offshore, and therefore was tax liable on the amount they would SELL with first a 10% withholding tax on total proceeds, and then a declaration to the Revenue department to calculate the full amount tax due based on cost.

Technically the offshore company is tax liable, not the individual shareholders, that's why they couldn't ask the tax to Thaksin children. I suspect that Ample Rich had received only 90% of the sale proceeds and 10% was withhold by the Exchange for the tax authority. It's still a good deal for Thaksin but the purpose of the Ample Rich offshore corporation wasn't tax avoidance, au contraire since the tax code here is very harsh for corporation investing in listed shares. The real purpose of the offshore company was share manipulation and asset concealment. They already ruled on that and I am sure Ample Rich came into the equation for the decision.

Originally Posted by sabang

incidentally, i'd love for there to be three real democratic choices- but I don't see it happening. Nobody has been able to set up a viable third party in the UK, Australia or US, ever. I believe it is the same in Europe. Now more than ever, Democracy calls out for a third alternative- but it is not forthcoming.

But there are third parties, in UK, Aus, US, they just do not get enough votes. For mainland Europe there are loads of parties. Not just three or four, which might be working optimal for democracy, of course, but life is not like that. They have maybe 7 or 12 or 24 parties. Who can not work with each other.
Feel inclined UK, Aus, US, system being - at least no worse, perhaps better.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Funny as hell that you 3 are defending what is in anyone's book a blatant abuse of power. That others do it is a failed argument.

typical right wing authoritarian thinking, do as I say, not as I do. Double standards is their MO.

Originally Posted by sabang

I am defending, and always will, the peoples Right of Suffrage.

glad to see you are a strong supporter of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

You are not getting anywhere with that .

I don't have the exact details of the Ample Rich transactions, but it's possible that it was a Private Placement into SHIN, not through the Exchange. If that's the case, and the shares were bought directly by Themasek in a private transactions, then the offshore company would once again be fully tax liable, but this time the Exchange wouldn't be there to collect the 10% withholding tax. Still declaration to the Revenue Department will need to be done or else they would be cheating. Since the company is "empty" and a shareholder proxy, it's the shareholders responsibility to pay for any tax liabilities if they want to keep operating the proxy company. The question is enforcement, almost impossible since it's an offshore corporation. But if authorities had evidence that Thaksin and his children were the real shareholders of Ample Rich, they could have gone after them for tax avoidance and shares concealment.