Khun Dean
Your accountant forwarded the letter from the revenue office to me. The letter invited Power Metal to have a meeting with the revenue officers on 17 November.
I just called K Paranee of the revenue office to inform her that I am not free on 17 November, and I can meet them on 24 November instead. She told me that the head of Samutsakorn revenue office will attend the meeting. In fact I told her to postpone it until December but she did not allow.
During the conversation, when I told her I am CCET director, she started to ask more questions why I am lawyer of Power Metal. So I clarified that the 0% vs 7% issue affect CCET and that is why I am involved in this matter and this is the only issue I get involved. Dealing with them as CCET director to solve VAT issue or as Power Metal’s lawyer will be different. It expresses sincerity that Power Metal invited CCET which is VAT affected party to be involved. Therefore I will appreciate if you could inform your team “not” to tell them I am Power Metal’s lawyer. In the upcoming meeting I will introduce I am CCET board member / special lecturer on tax laws. This is the “respect” issue from the head of Samutsakorn revenue office when I meet her. I hope you understand my point.
On separate issue, I followed up the progress of the letter we filed with the legal office of the Revenue Department and I also told the senior officer that Power Metal received the letter inviting for a meeting with the revenue officers. I asked him to give us a favor to expedite the process. I have heard that the head of Samutsakorn revenue office went to have the meeting with the legal office of the Revenue Department last Thursday to seek consultation on this matter. However, I don’t know whom she met with last Thursday.
Best regards
Thanasak