@رسلان **********

No way you are easily shifting condos in the current market

@رسلان **********

How many condos have you sold ??

Anonymous participant the more your role is internal (like HR) the less connection it may have.. Taking an independent contractor route 99% cuts any claim also..

Its really not a real world thing, except to lawyers who need to be concerned about every possible risk.

@Toni ******

This is the problem with permanent establishment rules, the rules are often very wide open and subject to a lot interpretation by each party. Then application of those rules becomes a political choice.

Even if you can successfully defend against it, the costs of doing so are a huge potential risk to the employer with near zero upside. So this accusation is made and the company needs to spend 10k plus to properly defend against it, thats risk for what ??

Theres also all kinds of different layers of PE risk (mine was related to construction risk which has different duration issues) Dependant agent, service (especially applicable for Thailand and remote). etc.

For Service

"Service PE

Some countries (especially in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) have a Service PE clause.

A Service PE arises if:

Employees of a foreign company provide services in the country

For more than X days (often 90 or 183 days in 12 months)

And the services are of certain types (consulting, technical, management)

Even one remote employee providing continuous services can trigger this.

Service PE applies even without a physical office."

@Toni ******

If your talking work calls on it.. That one thing (local fax line) cost me high 6-7 digits euros.

Even if the claim ultimately get defended, the kind of lawyer who work on this are many 100s per hour.. It would be a 10k retainer to look into it. Its obvious why am employer would say 'where the upside for us here' ??

@Mike *********

So just as a simple example the person is coding, they contribute code, that code gets globally rolled out. Then 'their actions are applied in the country they are working from' so yes.. See how grey it gets really fast ?? This is why companies often have 6 month limits (and where tax residence overlaps with this problem) for employees.

Enforcement becomes very much a political choice.. If the claim is made it then becomes a huge headache to legally defend against even if it is not proven. Corp lawyers at this level are not cheap !!

Does the head office want that potential problem ? Whats the upside for them ?

Anonymous participant 330 There are plenty of factors which could make that statement untrue.

@Mike *********

Once you work from a location, over 6 months, the potential for that location to be deemed a place of business of the employer is real, even a rented room can be 'a place of management' if the employee makes decisions (work!!) there.

The legal language is often vague and broad, and it often becomes a political choice which I doubt Thailand would pursue, but thats a corporate risk an employer doesnt have any need to accept.

Factors would be do they answer phone calls, do they agree (or even review) contracts, does what the employee do in any way influence or determine the actions the head office does that apply in the country where they are working.

I lost millions of euros over having a fax number as the owner of a non resident corporation.

@Mike *********

'he' becomes the presence..

This is a genuine risk for companies that allow staff to remain over 6 months. Laymen pretending it isnt simply isnt the legal facts.

Of course I am not pretending Thailand is chasing this, but the risk to the corporation is real and they are unlikely to be reassured by 'Thai enforcement is sloppy'.

@John *********

can be as low a bar as answering a Thai mobile number over a 6 month period.

Domestic phone number over 6 months, is claimable as a PE under OECD in some tax treaty's.