Thai Revenue Department rules on companies’ relationship based on common shareholding

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Thai Revenue Department rules on companies’ relationship based on common shareholding

Sponsored by

hlb-thailand-2.png
Thailand.jpg

Amit Bhalla and Andrew Jackomos of HLB Thailand explain the Thai Revenue Code’s guidance in determining the nature of the relationship between two entities and whether transfer pricing disclosure forms are required

The Thai Revenue Department (TRD) recently issued a ruling concerning the relationship between two companies based on their common shareholding. The case revolved around assessing whether Arare Company Limited (Arare) and Fahsai Company Limited (Fahsai) are related to each other based on shareholding and control dynamics.

Brief facts of the case

Arare is in the business of operating schools. The shareholding of the company is as follows.

Name

A Co., Ltd.

Z Co., Ltd.

Mr. Piti

Mr. Mana

Miss Manee

Total

Shareholding

48%

1%

46.06%

2.47%

2.47%

100%


Some of the shareholders of Arare also held shares in another Thai entity; namely, Fahsai, which is in the business of buying and selling real estate properties. The shareholding in Fahsai is set out below.

Name

Mr. Piti

Mrs. Chujai

Mrs. Deejai

Mr. Mana

Miss Manee

Total

Shareholding

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

100%


During the financial years under review (i.e., FY 2020 and FY 2021), Arare did not prepare or file any transfer pricing disclosure forms, as it neither had any related parties nor any transaction values with related parties based on its following understanding:

  • No juristic person held 50% or more of the total capital, either directly or indirectly, as required by Section 71 bis (1) of the Thai Revenue Code (TRC); and

  • None of the shareholders, either directly or indirectly, held 50% of the total capital of Arare, as required by Section 71 bis (2) of the TRC.

Apart from referring to the aforementioned provisions, Arare also provided the following information related to the voting rights of its shareholders.

Name

A Co., Ltd.

Z Co., Ltd.

Mr. Piti

Mr. Mana

Miss Manee

Total

Voting rights

89%

2%

9%

0%

0%

100%


Given the above information, Arare argued that interpreting the term ‘group of shareholders’ holding more than 50% as a related party is a very broad consideration and is not aligned with the provisions of Section 71 bis of the TRC. Moreover, the combined voting rights of the common shareholders in the company were merely 9%, reinforcing the argument against considering them as a control group.

The voting rights of A Co., Ltd. can be viewed as having the right to control Arare, according to the provisions of Section 71 bis (3) of the TRC. However, Arare contended that the TRD has not issued any ministerial regulations specifying the nature and circumstances of control, management, or capital to establish a relationship between two entities.

Based on the above arguments, Arare decided not to file transfer pricing disclosure forms for the financial years under review.

The TRD’s guidelines

In April 2024, the TRD held that Mr. Piti, Mr. Mana, and Miss Manee collectively hold 51% of the shares of Arare and 60% in Fahsai, so Arare and Fahsai meet the criteria for related parties under Section 71 bis of the TRC. The TRD viewed such a relationship as a direct or an indirect shareholding leading to control over both entities through a “group of common shareholders”.

The TRD mentioned that Arare should have disclosed Fahsai as a related party in a transfer pricing disclosure form and reported any relevant related-party transactions, given the interpretation that a collective shareholding, regardless of any relationship between individual shareholders in the group of common shareholders, constitutes a relationship.

HLB Thailand’s take

Taxpayers are required to identify and report their related parties in following the provisions of Section 71 bis of the TRC.

Tabulated below is a brief analysis of the provisions of Section 71 bis of the TRC.

Analysis points

HLB Thailand remarks

Section 71 bis does not contain the terms groups of shareholders, collective shareholding, nor any similar terms while explaining the scenarios whereby two entities become related to each other.


Given the merits of the instant case, the TRD’s view that collective shareholding by a “group of common shareholders” constitutes a related-party relationship does not have explicit citing in the provisions of Section 71 bis of the TRC.

Additionally, the TRD’s list of illustrations in its transfer pricing disclosure form guidelines (Diagnostic Guidelines Kor Kor 0702-217, and Diagnostic Guidelines Kor Kor 0702-3356), released in February 2022, provides examples of companies considered as related parties, specifically those fulfilling the shareholding criteria. It does not include any scenario establishing a relationship between two companies through a group of common individual shareholders.

The TRD’s Q&A regarding the Annual Report Filing for Companies or Partnerships with Related Parties under Section 71 bis of the TRC (the TRD’s Q&A) (this is an unofficial translation; for the original article, refer to this link), released in February 2022, also does not specify any circumstance(s) concerning the exercise of control and thereby establishing a relationship between two entities through a group of common shareholders.


Section 71 bis only refers to “related companies”, “juristic partnerships”, and “juristic persons” (Section 77/1 of the TRC defines a juristic person as a company or partnership, a governmental organisation, a cooperative, or any other entity designated by law as a juristic person).

The TRD has taken a similar position in other rulings (i.e., Kor Kor 0702/217 and Kor Kor 0702/3356), where the TRD held that a “group of common individual shareholders” holding more than 50% of the shares of two unrelated entities makes them related.

However, the provisions of the section merely refer to the legal form of business; i.e., “companies” and “juristic persons” to establish a relationship between two or more independent entities. The provisions do not cite the terms ‘individuals’ or ‘natural persons’ as they do not fall within the definition of juristic persons as provided in Section 77/1 of the TRC.


The TRD’s view that a related-party relationship was established by having a “group of common shareholders” achieve an aggregate of more than 50% of a shareholding is not supported by the provisions of Section 71 bis of the TRC. Moreover, it has been clearly mentioned in the TRD’s Q&A that the ministerial regulations have not defined the ‘control’ principle in the provisions of Section 71 bis, and, thus, if the TRD’s view is that the “group of common shareholders” achieved control over both entities through ‘a group of common shareholdings’, then it would contradict the TRD’s response in its Q&A.

Notwithstanding, the TRD did not provide any evidence to establish that the shareholders were acting in concert. Accordingly, where there is no arrangement between a group of shareholders to act in concert, there can be no joint control that would give rise to the entities being considered as related.

Additionally, even the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (referring to Article 9 of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital) do not specify any circumstance(s) concerning direct or indirect participation in management, control, and capital to establish a relationship between two entities.

Thus, Section 71 bis of the TRC does not permit the TRD, suo moto, to treat a group of individual shareholders as constituting a controlling group, especially where there is no agreement for them to act in concert, and, accordingly, Arare was justified in not filing any transfer pricing disclosure forms during the financial years under review.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
Gift this article