phuketlen

Wait, the Phuket Gazzet wants, Thais....to "take repsonsibility"?...THAIS?..."TAKE RESPONSIBILITY" ...............:cheesy: I LOVE it, Thais, take responsibility. Well the Gazette, at least its good for a laugh now and then.

I was just watching "An Idiot Abroad" and I must say, I get more laughs out of the Phuketien vs. Katabeachbum wars. Keep it up boys!!!

I checked my receipt when I registered my lease 5 years ago. 30 years, 1 million. It was in Thai, so I can't tell you exactly the translation. 1% fee for lease registration and 0.1% for witholding. Total 1.1% (i.e. 11,015 baht)

I live in the house full time and don't rent it out. I have thought about renting it out, but the tax payable on rental income is high. Don't quote me, but something like 12.5% of annual rental income. So if you rent it 1 day a year, you pay on 365 days. As if anyone gets 365 days rental. If you do, good on you. But obviously, not many people pay this tax in full.

It's a TV show on Astro w/ Ricky Gervais. You need to lighten up mate.

As I mentioned, I don't read Thai. The total was 1.1% to register the lease. After further checking, the 0.1% is stamp duty. Apologies if this caused you any undue anguish.

No "war" here, not on my end anyway.

No Giantfan my fake TV name is not "Phuketien"...maybe you saw that in your movie?

NO 0.1% was not for "withholding"...who told you that?

Again, you are somewhat right but completely confused as to your actual legal tax liablity on that house. Speaking of that, do YOU own it, yourself, in mean in your own personal name, legally?

You might want to be careful about saying who is such "idiot abroad". And you, are welcome.

I do not understand why you would think I "need to lighten up". I simply pointed out, for your edification, several inaccuracies in your post. I should think you would be grateful for that.

Oh, and BTW no idea who your Ricky is. But please, don't really want to know.

Also, this:

So if you rent it 1 day a year, you pay on 365 days. As if anyone gets 365 days rental.

is wrong.

and this:

But obviously, not many people pay this tax in full

is also not correct and legally irrelevant.

Anyway, I am done teaching on this thread.

steelepulse asked you if his post was 'correct or not'. And he gets a rhetorical answer from you..... mmmm

Look I applaude Steelpluse checking the law...very good, I mean that. NOW we are getting somewhere, somewhere that is not normal barstool and this commercial webchat forum's chat and quite often totally wrong about legal issues. Steelpluse went to the law, excellent, finally! Now, I throw you and Steelpulse golden nuggets on your way to the truth and you consider that a "wrong" or "suspect" answer?? For shame

You obviously don't understand the subtlety of the word 'rhetorical'. I never mentioned the words 'wrong' or 'suspect'.

And then I throw that back to you Livinginkata. Perhaps, I do not understand what "rehtorical" is. Please, enlighten me.

I was just watching "An Idiot Abroad" and I must say, I get more laughs out of the Phuketien vs. Katabeachbum wars. Keep it up boys!!!

I checked my receipt when I registered my lease 5 years ago. 30 years, 1 million. It was in Thai, so I can't tell you exactly the translation. 1% fee for lease registration and 0.1% for witholding. Total 1.1% (i.e. 11,015 baht)

I live in the house full time and don't rent it out. I have thought about renting it out, but the tax payable on rental income is high. Don't quote me, but something like 12.5% of annual rental income. So if you rent it 1 day a year, you pay on 365 days. As if anyone gets 365 days rental. If you do, good on you. But obviously, not many people pay this tax in full.

No "war" here, not on my end anyway.

No Giantfan my fake TV name is not "Phuketien"...maybe you saw that in your movie?

NO 0.1% was not for "withholding"...who told you that?

Again, you are somewhat right but completely confused as to your actual legal tax liablity on that house. Speaking of that, do YOU own it, yourself, in mean in your own personal name, legally?

You might want to be careful about saying who is such "idiot abroad". And you, are welcome.

I saw this from the RE forum from a poster that seemed to know a bit about law.

The duties of "The Hirer", as it is referred to in the Civil and Commercial Code, are defined in sections 552 - 563 of the said law. Non of these sections puts the hirer in burden of the land taxes. Hence, if nothing is mentioned in the lease/hire contract the onus of paying the land taxes lies with the owner, "The Letter" as it is referred to in the CCC.

So phuketlen, please advise if the above is correct or not.

You tell me. Does the said Civil and Commericial Code create all liabilities the lessee or lessor might have to each other or the goverrnment? Is it possible one or more laws might also?

steelepulse asked you if his post was 'correct or not'. And he gets a rhetorical answer from you..... mmmm

Look I applaude Steelpluse checking the law...very good, I mean that. NOW we are getting somewhere, somewhere that is not normal barstool and this commercial webchat forum's chat and quite often totally wrong about legal issues. Steelpluse went to the law, excellent, finally! Now, I throw you and Steelpulse golden nuggets on your way to the truth and you consider that a "wrong" or "suspect" answer?? For shame

<snip>

3. Tessabaan rental tax <snip>

<snip>

3. no, there is no such thing as that, but yes there is a tax that that local authority in certain areas is empowered to collect...now, what do you really know about that tax? because, that of course is what the OP wants to know about.

<snip>

Actually I know quite a lot about that tax as we (company and wife) pay quite a big chunk of money on that tax. I'll say this quite clearly, there is a rental tax imposed by the Tessiban on rental properties. Don't know why you drag the OP into this as it's now clear that he is not renting his property but seems to be liable for the rental tax on the lease with the owners. Over to you ....

I think you might grant me that knowing about it does not = understanding it. Wait though I disagree, was not this very tax the second half of the OP's question? Not sure what you mean then about the "dragging". But I will tell you, that if you know the law and understand it, it is possible, quite possible, for the OP to live there and be subject to that tax. Again, you are most welcome.

I saw this from the RE forum from a poster that seemed to know a bit about law.

The duties of "The Hirer", as it is referred to in the Civil and Commercial Code, are defined in sections 552 - 563 of the said law. Non of these sections puts the hirer in burden of the land taxes. Hence, if nothing is mentioned in the lease/hire contract the onus of paying the land taxes lies with the owner, "The Letter" as it is referred to in the CCC.

So phuketlen, please advise if the above is correct or not.

You tell me. Does the said Civil and Commericial Code create all liabilities the lessee or lessor might have to each other or the goverrnment? Is it possible one or more laws might also?

i thought I was done, but

for a lease there are presently 3 taxes applicable by law, and if you need the codes, please find them yourself

1. tax at land office to accept the lease registered in Chanote/NS3G

2. Owners income tax

3. Tessabaan rental tax

4. one more tax is on the table, but so far none has asked anyone I know about it, and I am not updated if the law has passed

3 offices, no pay cash, no lease registered in Chanote. No complete tax reciept issued

I am in no way telling OP to pay, he should pay when tax is according to law and as agreed on in lease

Reasonable, please adapt to reality and what has been agreed on

1. is not a tax . do you know who's legal liablility it is to pay that anyway?

2. yes, that is a tax associated with the lease.

3. no, there is no such thing as that, but yes there is a tax that that local authority in certain areas is empowered to collect...now, what do you really know about that tax? because, that of course is what the OP wants to know about.

4. well if its "on the table"...its not really a tax is it? and btw its not, anymore.

why do you all try to tell people who are honestly and sincerely looking for advice about subjects that are quite technical and if incorrect could completely screw them when you all said know that you are not compentent to give said advice? Is it some satisfaction to just say something and others will read it and think you are brillant??

Kata, I will give you a chance to maybe rephrase that and figure out what you are actually saying or asking there before I reply.

And what "real world" do you live in? My bet is its one where you think you have been here a long time and "know the score" and you pay stuff you have know idea (not really) if and how you should (read, perfect door for cooruption) and you post a lot on this forum and so you and others think that what you say must be true. But I say to you, sorry but please do not tell me to disrespect the rule of law here in Thailand, I do believe in that AND guess what I have been here too....for a long time, and I actually know what I am talking about, and if you know the law, the rule of law does pretty much work here. Its just all the idiots who read what someone who was ignorant (with all due respect) posted or told them at a bar do without checking or asking someone who acutally knows that end up paying and "drop the laws". I know.

hehehehe, I like to have a drink in a bar now and then, but there are subjects I never discuss in bars, like money, laws, taxes, property. Spoils the fun

I m done.

Waiting for your list of tax collectors accepting other payments than cash, and the "law" supporting valid reciept and/or transfer can be issued for such payment

I will pay tax in cash today at DLT and recive an official reciept. Makes them accept transfer of ownership

Dey Kata, could you kindly please rephrase as what you wrote here is not clear to me. Please note, a transfer of immovable property at the land office has nothing to do whatsoever with any tax liabiltiy for later ownership of a house here. So come on Kata, please, do let us all know.

And, by the way, even though I have not posted on this gossip forum as much as you, yes, one can pay the (relevant government office)...since you are now mixing two totally different offices....in other and ligitiment means than cash

But let's get back to the OP's question Kata..what is that tax? What law? ARE you REALLY telling the OP to just pay, in cash, that that you think you know about without really knowing about it? Really? I would say that is, well not reasonable.

most land owners would require a clause in lease stating "all taxes to be paid be lessee", including annual income tax and tessabaan rental tax and any other present or future tax applicable. and an additional clause "if taxes not paid when due, lessee accepts to leave property and hand it back to lessor without any claim" or something similar.

really? and what idiot lessee would agree to that? (lets put aside the issue that you clearly do not understand what taxes are legally payable by whom and when...lets just put that aside)...what idiot lessee would agree to to that?

Yes,I do have a receipt.

I paid because my solicitor(not a farang) pointed me to the clause in my 30year lease which states that I, not the landowner, are liable annually to this tax.

It's a large sum, but I can see no way out of it.And they had already started to threaten adding interest if it was not paid pronto.

sure, any party can make your responsible for their obligations...IF they are legitimate. And maybe you did not understand and did not get good legal advice when you entered your contract...but the I really doubt your "thai lawyer" truly understands the alleged tax...or your contract and/or whether you are liable...but if you really want to know and all you do is go this site for legal advice and you pay your local lawyer who does not know and you go on this site hoping for a diagnosis for your disease, so sorry for you, in fact you, with all due respect, are getting exactly what you deserve. I hope the rest you learn a bit from that.

phuketlens conclusions based on what?

the annual tax for a lease, if not prepaid for 30 years lease, needs to be paid in cash, as cash is the only acceptable payment. so does the owners annual income tax on the lease.

in addition some tessabaan enforce collection of rental tax on leases, also to be paid in cash

where did phuketlen find the corruption? and I am looking forward to his advice

Well you know phuketlen likes to hold his cards close to his chest ...

hemmmm....well, lets see. IF and only if Kata was correct about what he is trying to say about laws he does not understand, let's look at his comment about the tessabaan "enforce collection of rental tax on leases, also to be paid in cash". Ok, what law says that?... including the "cash basis" part, that is very specific, so it must be in the law, ya? ...or maybe the alternative is the case ...maybe since it is not the law, well that is not the case...

why not make us a list of which tax collectors accept other payments than cash baht? I for one would love to bring my check book to land office and not hundreds or millions of baht to cover taxes.

and please drop the laws, in the real world we need to know what is in reality accepted, never seen a law defining method of payment.

Well thinking of it, all fines to Phuket Provincal Court and Royal Thai Police must be paid in cash. Same goes for bail, unless bailbond approved or Chanote assesed

Kata, I will give you a chance to maybe rephrase that and figure out what you are actually saying or asking there before I reply.

And what "real world" do you live in? My bet is its one where you think you have been here a long time and "know the score" and you pay stuff you have know idea (not really) if and how you should (read, perfect door for cooruption) and you post a lot on this forum and so you and others think that what you say must be true. But I say to you, sorry but please do not tell me to disrespect the rule of law here in Thailand, I do believe in that AND guess what I have been here too....for a long time, and I actually know what I am talking about, and if you know the law, the rule of law does pretty much work here. Its just all the idiots who read what someone who was ignorant (with all due respect) posted or told them at a bar do without checking or asking someone who acutally knows that end up paying and "drop the laws". I know.

Phuketlen, instead of perpetually irritating members with your non answers,why not ingratiate them and tell them what you and your thorough understanding of the law is on both of the threads that you have so generously posted in without supplying any answers. I'm sure if someone posted here about quantum physics and how it applies to nano technology, I could give the same answers as you.

simple Steel...why?...why? AGAIN what I am, really and I mean it, is trying to get this commercial webchat forum folks is to think, me just telling them the answer will not do that, they will continue to as lazy as they apparently feel they can be by relying in this wecbhat forum site and or those who post a bunch here and sponsor here and give "info". BUT if I point out and can back up that what is posted here is wrong, incorrect, then you all are on your own...you figure it out. Wait I thought you all came here to Thailand and you are adventures and have that spirit...you, YOU figure it out. What happened? Please note, no one so far has been able to disprove what I have said, only complain I do not just tell them the answer :jap:

I maintain that my answers are very helpful. VERY helpful indeed.

<snip>

Now, who is helpful and who is not?

Your answer would be helpful if it were to help the OP, answer the question posed by the OP in this or any other thread. Since as usual it does not, you're not helpful at all.

Neither am I in this thread I admit, but I was hoping my remark would be helpful to you. My mistake.

If I make you all think...I THINK that is REALLY "helpful".

I see you are still holding those cards close to your chest. It would be helpful if you answer the OP's question instead of bashing other members answers. So you should give the answer you think is correct. Then we can all make comment...

Waiting ... waiting ...zzzz

I am not here to make it easy for you...that would be no help to you in the long run, trust me and be glad I am willing to point out the BS on this site. But, ok to be nice I will do a bit of what you ask. Hemmm, okay lets see, no "that property tax" that the OP asked about did not go into effect. The last cabinet proposed it to replace the current the house and land tax and local development tax which have been in effect forever and are indeed arguably very outdated..but the new cabinet let that lapse (if I am not mistaken last week or the week before) so that new property tax is now a dead issue unless someone restarts the whole process to make something like that law again. ....so there you go, I actually and accurately answered the first half of the OP's question...feel free to comment

i would've expected a decent lawyer to explain what it was, what period it covered and what else may potentially arise

a receipt should always be obtained unless you like paying twice, thrice etc

who owns the land, the house and how?

Indeed Thaiwander, I agree...said lawyer should show you the law that says you must pay that and why and if it is legitimate the government must give you a reciept OR do NOT pay. Simple, totally agree.

phuketlens conclusions based on what?

the annual tax for a lease, if not prepaid for 30 years lease, needs to be paid in cash, as cash is the only acceptable payment. so does the owners annual income tax on the lease.

in addition some tessabaan enforce collection of rental tax on leases, also to be paid in cash

where did phuketlen find the corruption? and I am looking forward to his advice

Well you know phuketlen likes to hold his cards close to his chest ...

hemmmm....well, lets see. IF and only if Kata was correct about what he is trying to say about laws he does not understand, let's look at his comment about the tessabaan "enforce collection of rental tax on leases, also to be paid in cash". Ok, what law says that?... including the "cash basis" part, that is very specific, so it must be in the law, ya? ...or maybe the alternative is the case ...maybe since it is not the law, well that is not the case...

OK, so lets review. You Wellington were not looking for any accurate legal advice here in this webchatforum and you went ahead and paid this fee you asked about based on your "solictor" (whom you think knows the relevant law) telling you to and you clearly paid corruption money...nice

nextt time, as I have and will continue to say...make your lawyer you pay tell you the LAW that says that...it does matter, surprise!

Why don't you stop the rhetoric and give a helpful answer in one of the threads here? Just once, try it, you might see that people actually are going to appreciate you.

phuketlens conclusions based on what?

the annual tax for a lease, if not prepaid for 30 years lease, needs to be paid in cash, as cash is the only acceptable payment. so does the owners annual income tax on the lease.

in addition some tessabaan enforce collection of rental tax on leases, also to be paid in cash

where did phuketlen find the corruption? and I am looking forward to his advice

Kata I know you have posted like a zillion times and so your advice must be "based" on a, well like a bunch of postings, ya?? But since you carry such weight of so much postigm, I grant you all due deference, however. Em, no you are not correct, the "annual tax for a lease" is need not "be paid in cash". That would be income tax anyway and no cash is not the only acceptable payment. And no idea what "so does the owners annual income tax..." mean, you are just wrong. And if WANT to be screwed, unlawfully by your purported tetsabaan then good luck to you and if the rest of you want to be equally screwed as a result of your webchat (may I Kata?) Katabeachbumb's advice, well then I would advise you follow his webchat advice on that...OR we can ask Kata to show us what law says what he says...and if he...cannot, I would advise you not to follow his advice..

Wellington why would you try to find accurate legal advice on a commercial webchatforum? Would you ask for a medical diagnosis here?

Ever looked at the health forum. Plenty of members ask for medical opinions ...

I doubt the OP is looking for accurate legal advice, suspect he is just trying to find if anyone else has a similar tax demand, before seeking advice from a professional who will charge some sort of fee. Nothing wrong with that.

An accurate assessment ,

but I was advised to pay by my solicitor and not surprised when the Govt. Office in Kathu would take only cash.

OK, so lets review. You Wellington were not looking for any accurate legal advice here in this webchatforum and you went ahead and paid this fee you asked about based on your "solictor" (whom you think knows the relevant law) telling you to and you clearly paid corruption money...nice

nextt time, as I have and will continue to say...make your lawyer you pay tell you the LAW that says that...it does matter, surprise!

Why don't you stop the rhetoric and give a helpful answer in one of the threads here? Just once, try it, you might see that people actually are going to appreciate you.

Steven, I have no need of being appreciated by this commercial webchat forum's members. BUT I am nice enough (not sure why)

Steven, come on, please kindly define what you mean by "rehtoric" in your reply above. I maintain that my answers are very helpful. VERY helpful indeed. My opinion is that there are very few who understand what the law here actually says, how it actually works, that can actually back up what they say with the law that supports what they say, i.,e what we make and expect of what we call "lawyers" and in a society that is "ruled by law".

For example, here again (the whole building permit = house ownership inaccuracy aside) if anyone who is seriously interested in this topic acutually takes the time and effort to make the person who told them what they think is the right information back it up...instead of just believing it and then even worse proliferating it here on this webchat forum and worse maybe elsewhere...then I have helped them, more than you can begin to imagine.

Look, I have only, pressed those posting here to back up what they say/post with such "authority"..what is wrong with that? Do you believe them? Any of them? Note, none of them have been able to back up what they post with regard to "legal rights" in Thailand and what LAW actually assertedly gives one the "LEGAL rights" they assert...none. Please, I think you are going after the wrong one here and perhaps, just perhaps, I am being helpful, FAR more helpful that you read here usually ESPECIALLY about Thai law.

Now, who is helpful and who is not?

Wellington why would you try to find accurate legal advice on a commercial webchatforum? Would you ask for a medical diagnosis here?

Ever looked at the health forum. Plenty of members ask for medical opinions ...

I doubt the OP is looking for accurate legal advice, suspect he is just trying to find if anyone else has a similar tax demand, before seeking advice from a professional who will charge some sort of fee. Nothing wrong with that.

An accurate assessment ,

but I was advised to pay by my solicitor and not surprised when the Govt. Office in Kathu would take only cash.

OK, so lets review. You Wellington were not looking for any accurate legal advice here in this webchatforum and you went ahead and paid this fee you asked about based on your "solictor" (whom you think knows the relevant law) telling you to and you clearly paid corruption money...nice

nextt time, as I have and will continue to say...make your lawyer you pay tell you the LAW that says that...it does matter, surprise!

If you own the property then there should be no property tax to pay. Rental and leased property attracts property tax roughly about 10% of the rental income and paid to local Tesiban office.

The tax bill would usually be sent to the owner of the property, and depending on the rental/lease contract the owner may pass on to tenant.

Actually, that is only partially correct regarding the poster's potential tax liability and only half of what the poster was asking about in any event.

Wellington why would you try to find accurate legal advice on a commercial webchatforum? Would you ask for a medical diagnosis here?

No law "gives ownership over a building in thailand by having ones name in the buildingpermit for that building".

Agreed. Ownership has nothing to do with the planning office. Only the land office can issue ownership paperwork for a building, usually on leasehold land. If there is no registered lease then the owner of the land owns all property on that land.

ad usufruct or superficies to the leasehold as instuments of controlling land, so we can rephrase: If there is no registered control over the land, the land owner automaticly owns all buildings on that land

Great, so now all the posters who post all the time on the forum agree, the building permit has nothing to do with legal ownership of the building, correct?

Now, as for your assumption about the "automatically" and registered and control...can you show me what law says that, because, well frankly you are not correct. But again, if that is legal, then the law says it somewhere show us.

Phuketlen your goals was to educate yet your result is to obfuscate...

Hey mike, good to see you know some big words and know what they mean and even more impressive you can rhyme them.

Now, my goal was indeed to educate, but not primarily to teach you all what a building permit is legally BUT to have you all ask you "lawyers" (including, perhaps especially the Thai ones) what law provides that a building permit gives one legal ownership of a building in any way whatsoever. If the said lawyer cannot provide that essential legal citation (and yes even in Thailand a law must exist to make something "legal" or for that matter "illegal") then I did it...folks migh start to realize their so called legal advisor (Thai or not) has no real clue what the law actually says.

I never came here on this to be easy, why should I? If I were all these long time web posters and barstool gurus would simply continue to spew the same, inaccurate pablem.

Simple question, which no one ever answered and with which I started: what law gives legal rights of ownership over a building in thailand by having ones name in the building permit for that building. Simple...see? no one can answer that, they think that they are right because someone told them that, the forum says it, they say it and they are global or some such moderators...but they cannot answer it yet...I truly hope they are asking their various "lawyers" the answer to that...I look forward to the answer and in the meantime, yes I truly hope, no I know, what a valuable education that is for those who did that and you are welcome.

@phuketlen ... your last 7 consecutive posts continue to go round in endless circles. Seems quite clear that my and KBB posts confirm that the Tabian Baan has nothing to do with proof of ownership. We all agree on that.

agreed, Tabien Baan does not in any way show who is the owner of a structure or the land

Tabien Baan and buildingpermit does not alone establish ownership of a structure, but both are needed to be able to establish registered ownership.

Continued discussions with phuketlen is out of interest for me, I am just a beachbum.

Despite numerous posts he still has not contributed with any valuable info

First of all beachbum, I suspect you are not going anywhere and will want the last word on this, fair enough.

Second, are you so sure I have not really contributed valuable info?

Well, ok hold on that, you say TB and Building Permit some how also "establish" ownership of a building in some way. If so, it must be legal, there must be a law or laws that say that. I say that is not the case. If you are correct, then your source or sources informing you of that can tell you what law or laws provide that. If not, they are incorrect, simple.

You say "both are needed to be able to establish registered ownership"...why? what law? and what "registration"?

I am not going to tell you all this...ask your forum/lawyers/officials you know and tell me what LAW of LAWS prove what you say.

And hey, I came here for the beach too, I know this stuff already and it is starting to really waste my time. If you are okay with igonorance on this and want to just bum on the beach, fair enough

Supposedly phuketlen is trying to teach people to fish instead of giving them a fish, however he's really only saying "go fish" instead of showing how to fish. Why not tell those that are asking specifically where to look and what codes support your claim? Seems simple enough really.

Indeed Steelpulse, but if I did that I would not be teaching the most valuable lesson here which is, once again, to question the legal information you get from forums or "lawyers" or government workers like people at the land office or municipallity (do you think they really have any idea how the law actually works??)...just like you should and hopefully do do in your own countries. I have heard a number of folks tell me that this forum and or their numerous lawyers "prove" that having one's name in a building permit confers legal ownership over that building...in some way. If a purpoted source of legal knowledge alleges that this or that is "legal" or that it gives one a "legal right"...it must be that a law or laws say that, no? So, I await any legal evidence that a building permit means you own the building, legally...please look in your own forum (I previously heard its "all there") or ask your lawyer or government official and then show me that law. Lesson done. You are all very much welcome.