Principle of law applies to the big fish, too
The performance of the Revenue Department over the past two weeks is making many of us question what exactly its role is. Of particular concern is the department’s efforts to tax former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra over the sale of his Shin Corp shares, especially as there are only nine days left before the 10-year statute of limitation on this case expires.
The department’s handling of this case raises several questions and makes me wonder about its powers of judgement, or lack thereof.
It has changed its position many times, causing the government in the end to come up with a new way of collecting tax (before the case expires) that it has dubbed “a miracle of law”.
Initially, the department insisted it would not be possible to collect the tax from Thaksin as the five-year window for evaluation required by the Revenue Code expired in 2012.
It decided this even though the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) recommended it exercise Section 61 of the Revenue Code. This allows officials to collect tax from anyone whose name appears in “any important document” showing they own the assets being sold.
Thaksin was named in a ruling by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders as the real owner of the 1.419 billion Shin Corp shares sold to Temasek Holdings. The shares include those held by his children that the OAG requested for tax collection from Thaksin as he was the real owner.
But after coming under heavy pressure from both the Finance Ministry and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, the department made a U-turn and agreed to proceed with the tax collection using the said law.
That decision was made hastily, in less than a week. But what does this mean?
Did the department fail to follow the principle of law in not collecting the tax in the first place? Or if it did act correctly at that time, does it now place more importance on yielding to its bosses’ orders?
Assuming the department has acted in good faith all along, it may have concluded there were no legal grounds to pursue the case. But the agency should be more aware of its role as a state tax
collector and make more concerted efforts to collect the proper taxes, particularly from “big fish” like Thaksin.
In fact, numerous taxpayers, especially those among the middle class, believe the country’s system for collecting taxes is unfair, which discourages them from paying their due taxes.
Some studies suggest that middle-class taxpayers ranging from street vendors to company employees form the largest group of personal-income taxpayers. They tend to be very stringently evaluated by the department as it moves to expand its tax bases, which gives them scant opportunity to dodge paying their taxes.
Such a system is likely based on the idea that tax officials come first and fairness second. It’s a well-known fact that in Thailand the super rich and politicians have many ways of “legally” avoiding paying all of their taxes, some of which may border on illegal tax evasion. A number of law firms offer tax-consulting services for such purposes.
According to Teerana Bhongmakapat,
a professor of economics at Chulalongkorn University, some of the rich are those who own high-value assets but do not appear to have sufficiently high incomes to pay high tax rates.
One common tactic employed by the super rich is transferring some or all of their wealth to other members of their family to get around this problem.
Middle-class taxpayers have to pay progressive tax rates but relations of the super rich can enjoy huge savings through this process of wealth transferal as they do not have the income to merit the higher taxation rates, he noted.
Recently, the Office of the AuditorGeneral asked the Revenue Department to investigate 60 politicians from the former Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck Shinawatra governments for possible tax collection given that their assets appeared to have substantially increased after they left office.
According to Auditor-General Pisit Leelavachiropas, the Revenue Department responded to the request by saying
those politicians are not considered to be unusually rich.
If this is true, the department’s reasoning is hard to explain and unacceptable. It is duty-bound to collect tax from all forms of “income”, including profits and asset gains. It is not the department’s job to decide who is “unusually” wealthy and whether or not they should be taxed on such wealth.
Regardless of whether the law permits the department to collect the extra tax from those politicians (as suggested by the OAG), at the very least it should show some enthusiasm in terms of putting them under the microscope.
While the country is admittedly under pressure to fill its coffers, the Revenue Department should work harder to collect the appropriate taxes from these “big fish” rather than focusing on the small fry who have little or nothing to give.
If the department does not know where the big fish are, I would be happy to help point them in the right direction.
Let’s just take a look at some of the developments over the past week.
Rolls-Royce Motors Cars in Bangkok said during a recent press conference that it found 82 new additions to the country’s super-rich list, which now stands at 450. It has targeted these new faces as potential patrons, it said.
Isn’t the Revenue Department also interested in targeting these 82 people?
Meanwhile, the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission held an auction last weekend for “auspicious” mobile phone numbers. Those who attended paid 120 million baht for 76 numbers, including one person who paid eight million baht for the number 091-999-9999.
Did this escape the notice of the department? Either way, as an important source of government income, it must abide by the principles of fair play and the rule of law if it is to ensure the trust and support of the public.
Soonruth Bunyamanee is deputy editor, Bangkok Post.