Tax records to join list for declaration 

Tax records to join list for declaration 

The prime minister, cabinet ministers, MPs and senators will be required to submit their tax records as well as their assets and liabilities to the anti-graft agency under the new charter.

Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) spokesman, Gen Lertrat Rattanawanit, said the clause differs from the 2007 charter which required they only declare their assets and liabilities.

He said the CDC has also agreed that members of independent bodies assigned to scrutinise use of state power will also be required to declare their assets, debts and tax records.

The financial records of these public figures will be made available for public examination, Gen Lertrat said.

He said other political office-holders, yet to be determined, will only be required to declare assets and debts to the anti-graft body.

The Revenue Department has posted notices online for due dates of tax reports for 2015.

In the 2007 charter, those required to declare assets and debts included members of local administrative bodies.

Gen Lertrat said details about asset declarations and how far back the tax records go will be included in an organic law involving the anti-graft agency. 

Under the charter drawn up to date, these individuals will be required to declare their tax records dating back by up to five years.

He said the prime minister may be required to declare tax records dating back five years while senators may be required to declare tax payments dating back three years.

According to Gen Lertrat, all those required to declare assets and debts under the new charter will face charges and punishment if it is later discovered their assets are held by nominees.

Reports said the charter writers spent more than two hours Monday debating whether "a spouse who is not legally married" to political office-holders should also declare their assets and debts.

Those who wanted this clause claimed that several politicians choose to divorce their spouses for technical reasons including avoiding asset examination.

Those opposed to the new clause argued that it could easily lead to legal complications.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (6)