Land ownership for Foriegners

Post by **kubotatim** » August 8, 2015, 10:12 am

And pay taxes on what?? the company is bogus and not actually doing anything, a total farce.??

Post by **fatbob** » August 8, 2015, 10:14 am

As far as I can make this thread out it is how a foreigner gets around the hurdles of owning his home in Thailand, as posted it is the only way, whether or not you would or wouldnt Glat I dont really give a toss, the thread isnt about you.

Post by **fatbob** » August 8, 2015, 10:18 am

The business of the company is renting the land which the company owns to the foreigner who has his house pn that land, a foreigner can own a house, the company is legit under Thai law not bogus, you guys need to get your facts correct.

Post by **glalt** » August 8, 2015, 10:28 am

Does it really make sense that a foreigner cannot own land but can own a company that does own land? You start a bogus company and buy property that you have paid for 100 percent. Now you turn around and give away 51 percent of your investment. That does not appeal to me. Paying rent on a property that I already paid for then paying taxes on that company income is especially repulsive. Your partners have no investment so they are nominees. The government position on nominees is VERY clear. You need to do your homework.

Post by **fatbob** » August 8, 2015, 11:15 am

Whether or not it makes sense isn't the issue, that is the path foreigners take to own there home, it is the only way it can be done in Thailand. The company is legal not bogus, you pay rent to yourself, you are out of pocket on tax, monthly and yearly audits, it doesn't appeal to me but again that is not the issue, it is merely how you do it in Thailand. The last house I built cost 50 mill USD, the billionaire owner did it this way set up by arguably the most powerful lawyer in the country, all legal.

Post by **wazza** » August 8, 2015, 11:51 am

Glat

You also need to do your homework.

The expat can also use the company to obtain a visa. Work permit etc

Plus having legitimate overseas contracts through this company and paying legitimate Thai tax you can minimise your overseasa taxation obligations.

The government position on this is very clear as its the same government that signs off on the SME, the yearly taxation return , the transfer of title etc.

Post by **can123** » August 8, 2015, 2:00 pm

coxo wrote:The business of the company is renting the land which the company owns to the foreigner who has his house pn that land, a foreigner can own a house, the company is legit under Thai law not bogus, you guys need to get your facts correct.

There is no mechanism which allows for a farang owning Thai land. This fact is correct and the formation of a company does not allow this to be altered in any way.

Things may change if Thai governments wish to secure investment from other countries and there may be the possibility of long term leases. This, however, would not extend as far as individuals.

I accept that many may use a company which will then give the impression that the land is owned by non-Thais. The reality is that it remains Thai owned.

Although relating to a different issue, I give this example of how Thai conduct their affairs -

Countless TEFL teachers work in the KIngdom and many have few, if any, qualifications. Theoretically work permits are required for these teachers but many do not have them. The employers "process" an application for a work permit as slowly as they can so as to make the teachers "legal". A teacher only needs for his employer to start the process and it does not need to be finished. Although fully qualified, I worked in one school for six months without ever having a work permit and did so legally because my employers were "processing" it.
A blind eye was turned to unqualified teachers as they were cheap but, more important, they could be dismissed at any time at the whim of the employer. The expression we use in the UK is "the employers had such teachers "by the balls".
It suited the Thai to do this.

In much the same way a blind eye is turned to companies owning land. It suits the Thais but they can change things at any time because the absolute ownership of land is vested in Thais only. Nobody who owns 49% of a Thai company can ever own land.

If one is desperate to own Thai land then the only way is through gaining Thai citizenship.

For the purposes of the above I have ignored the red herrings of usufructs and long term leases, neither of which gives absolute ownership.

Post by **fatbob** » August 8, 2015, 2:49 pm

can123 wrote: by can123 » August 8, 2015, 2:00 pm

coxo wrote:
The business of the company is renting the land which the company owns to the foreigner who has his house pn that land, a foreigner can own a house, the company is legit under Thai law not bogus, you guys need to get your facts correct.

There is no mechanism which allows for a farang owning Thai land. This fact is correct and the formation of a company does not allow this to be altered in any way.

Things may change if Thai governments wish to secure investment from other countries and there may be the possibility of long term leases. This, however, would not extend as far as individuals.

I accept that many may use a company which will then give the impression that the land is owned by non-Thais. The reality is that it remains Thai owned.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, can123, if that is your belief then good luck to you, this topic is now off limits for me, I'm fed up with it.

Post by **can123** » August 8, 2015, 7:22 pm

You are wrong, Coxo. It is as well that you have left the thread as you are misleading people. It is fundamentally important to Thailand that land can only be owned by Thais and there is no way to get around this tenet.

Post by **wazza** » August 8, 2015, 8:11 pm

Can123 ur wrong

A thai company with an expat having legal prevailing influence with preferred shares can.

Title in thai company name. Influence within the company by an expat.

All legal all paying taxes and all auditted yearly

Post by **can123** » August 8, 2015, 8:27 pm

I am not wrong. I am talking about fundamental ownership akin to the English freehold possession. Farangs can own rights to land use but they can never own the land in its entirety. The land will always be owned and controlled by Thais.

If what you said was correct, there would be a small percentage of land in Thailand which would be freely available for sale to other farangs but this is not the case.

I am not being pedantic and have studied land law, albeit English land law. The whole thread seems to be based on the misunderstanding of outright ownership and rights to the land. These are completely different things. A farang company may have rights to land but it will never have absolute ownership of that land. There will always be conditions that ensure that eventually all rights revert to Thais.

Post by **wazza** » August 8, 2015, 8:42 pm

And Coxo and I have never said outright ownership.

Explained how prevailing influence allows occupation and control etc.

Go back and read the initial posts and show where outright ownership in an expat name has been confirmed.

Post by **can123** » August 8, 2015, 10:32 pm

wazza wrote:And Coxo and I have never said outright ownership.

Explained how prevailing influence allows occupation and control etc.

Go back and read the initial posts and show where outright ownership in an expat name has been confirmed.

Is what I have written correct, please ? I have made the distinction between ownership and rights. This is of fundamental importance for a farang inThailand. Others have failed to have regard to this.

Post by **glalt** » August 9, 2015, 9:45 am

Source - http://www.thailand-lawyer.com/thailand ... lders.html

Thailand Nominee Shareholders

What is a nominee shareholder?

A nominee shareholder is a shareholder in name only; in reality nominee shareholders lacks any real financial stake or interest in the company. Under Thailand business law, the practice of nominee shareholders is illegal. The prohibition is found in the Foreign Business Act 1999 , and the Land Act . Foreign companies with Thai nominee shareholders are coming under an increased amount of scrutiny.

Why register a Thai majority company?

Many foreigners choose to form a Thai majority company, (more than 50% of the shareholders are Thai), so that the Company is able to operate a business in a category that is restricted to foreigners. The registration of a Thai majority company generally requires less registered capital and less paperwork than the registration of a foreign company. A Thai majority company can also buy land.

How can a foreigner control a 51% Thai Majority Company?

In a Thai majority company, Thai shareholders own 50% or more of the shares. In the recent pas the maximum ratio of foreign ownership in Thai majority companies was considered to be 49% versus Thai ownership of 51%, However, for certain types of business activities a 39% maximum ratio of foreign ownership is required.

Will the equity in a Thai majority company be owned by the Thai shareholders?

Pursuant to the law, shareholders own the equity of a company in proportion to their share ownership. Therefore, the majority of the equity in a Thai majority company will almost certainly be owned by the Thai majority.

What is the relationship between shareholder ownership and the operation of a company in Thailand?

In general, the majority ownership of a company are able to select a director and make decisions as to the operation of the company. Under certain circumstances, the use of preferential voting rights and the requirement of a super majority of shares to votes may alter voting rights in favor of minority share holders.

Are deeds of transfer from the Thai shareholders to the foreign owners legal?

The use of "nominee" shareholders is expressly forbidden by the Foreign Business Act of 1999. It is a criminal often with significant penalties including fines and imprisonment. Prior to the introduction of the revised act of 1999 it was common to utilize loan-pledge agreements as a method for foreign minority shareholders to control majority Thai shareholders. This entails the Thai shareholders borrowing funds from the foreigner and "pledging" the shares back as security. However, the Act of 1999 made this practice illegal. While enforcement of the Thai nominee prohibitions of the Foreign Business Act has been infrequent, the practice is risky particularly if a company has engaged the use of professional nominees whose name appears on multiple company registrations.

Post by **can123** » August 9, 2015, 1:51 pm

Thanks for this. It must surely convince farangs that they must live within the law in Thailand as they risk more than just losing money when they act illegally. Foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

Post by **countrybumpkin** » August 9, 2015, 4:44 pm

can123 wrote:I am not wrong. I am talking about fundamental ownership akin to the English freehold possession. Farangs can own rights to land use but they can never own the land in its entirety. The land will always be owned and controlled by Thais.

If what you said was correct, there would be a small percentage of land in Thailand which would be freely available for sale to other farangs but this is not the case.

I am not being pedantic and have studied land law, albeit English land law. The whole thread seems to be based on the misunderstanding of outright ownership and rights to the land. These are completely different things. A farang company may have rights to land but it will never have absolute ownership of that land. There will always be conditions that ensure that eventually all rights revert to Thais.

You may very well have studied English land law, but you fail to grasp one of its most fundamental rules. Freehold possession does not give 'fundamental ownership'. It is an estate in land - a very different thing. The ultimate owner of all land in England is the Crown. A freehold estate (an estate in 'fee simple') affords the occupier the greatest bundle of rights, but is never gives absolute ownership. The estate in fee simple will endure as long as the current estate owner has heirs or assigns. That is precisely why if I died without making a Will and had no family to inherit under the rules of intestacy, my freehold estate would be 'bona vacantia' and title would revert to the Crown. The point I am making is that a Thai company can own land as long as the company exists - my estate in land will continue as long as there are heirs and assigns. Not such a fundamental distinction as you assume.

Post by **can123** » August 9, 2015, 5:18 pm

Smoke and mirrors, mate. I am fully aware that "the ultimate owner of all land in England is the Crown". The company has to be legitimate if land is to be owned in Thailand and it has been suggested that companies can be formed at any time using nominee shareholders. This is not true and is misleading to honest farangs who wish to have rights to land.

It is very simple - farangs can never own land, only rights to it.

Why are people so aggressive here ?

Post by **plumbers** » August 9, 2015, 5:46 pm

People are aggressive here because they do not like to hear the truth,
You are wasting your time they will always have a smart answer because they have spent money on property and want to defend thier actions . Thai land is for Thai people and they make it quite clear and if expats think they can get round Thai law they are making a mistake. but this is Thaland and as they say Its Up To you.
Give it Up can123 and let them get on with it .

Post by **can123** » August 9, 2015, 7:35 pm

Thanks, plumbers, it certainly seems that way. The bad thing is that people will come to a forum like this to learn the truth and the misinformation provided here could have serious consequences.

I still cannot understand why people who have no knowledge feel obliged to offer advice. I'll take yours and make no more comments on this thread.

Post by **glalt** » August 9, 2015, 7:54 pm

I blame bent Thai lawyers and corrupt real estate salesmen for getting ignorant foreigners into these bogus company deals. The problem is if/when this comes to a head, the people who paid the money cannot lay the blame or collect anything from the people who got them into the company deal. Real estate people and lawyers can be quite persuasive and will tell the client not to worry because it is all perfectly legal. Lawyers love these company deals. They furnish the nominees, collect their inflated fees and the accountant also normally works for the lawyer.