Condo rental to tourists

[Maestro]

11 hours ago, xylophone said:

Not sure that's what is meant by the Min Reg of 2008??

 

You refer to "one to four apartments owned by a person"............whereas IMO the regulation refers to a building containing not more than four rooms.

 

The Ministerial Regulation is in Thai. The Thai term in the Regulation, for which the law firm Mayer and Brown used the English term "residential premise" in their commentary, is the same Thai term used in the Hotel Act, where it was translated as "accommodation" in the version published by the Office of the Council of State.

 

What is meant by the Ministerial Regulation will have to be debated in a court of law if and when a case goes to court, but there is no harm in discussing possible interpretations here on Thaivisa. How would you argue for the defense, how for the prosecution? Obviously, the court proceedings will be in Thai, whereas the discussion here is in English. Shall we agree on "accommodation", as this seems to come closest to an official translation?

 

And yes, you are right, the number of persons owning the "accommodation where the number of rooms in the same building or several buildings is not more than four rooms accommodating not more than twenty guests which was established to provide temporary accommodation for travelers or any other person for compensation" is immaterial, it does not have to be only one person.

 

And yes, whereas I paraphrased "not more than four rooms" as "one to four apartments (condo units)" these two terms are not necessarily synonymous, as an apartment or condo unit more often than not probably consists of more than one room. (I used "apartments (condo units)" in my paraphrasing because this topic is about "condo rentals" and this English version of the Condominium Act uses the correct term "apartment" for what is colloquially often called a condo-unit or simply a condo)

[Maestro]

9 hours ago, Cashy said:

Got this info from legal adviser: Condos bought by Non-Thai-nationals under the ( Thai) condominium act, are not eligible for any rentals, can be only used for private purposes of the buyer/owner. Thai nationals allowed to rent out condominuims / houses , the minimum rental period must be 1 month. 

 

Thank you for posting this very interesting information. If your legal advisor can quote the relevant text, which can be in Thai if not available in English, from the corresponding law or ministerial regulation he will gain recognition on this forum as a top expert in matters relating to condominium ownership. Until then, I suggest that members do not comment on your post but look at it as uncorroborated alleged hearsay.

[KittenKong]

Got this info from legal adviser: Condos bought by Non-Thai-nationals under the ( Thai) condominium act, are not eligible for any rentals, can be only used for private purposes of the buyer/owner. Thai nationals allowed to rent out condominuims / houses , the minimum rental period must be 1 month.

I have never heard of any such rule that differentiates between Thais and non-Thais in that respect.

[Maestro]

3 hours ago, KittenKong said:

I have never heard of any such rule that differentiates between Thais and non-Thais in that respect.

 

As I suggested: do not comment on that post. Nobody has ever heard of such rule, for the simple reason that it does not exist.

[xylophone]

I think that this from a law firm here sums it up well............

 

This from:-  DUENSING KIPPEN………an international law firm specializing in business transaction and dispute resolution matters, with offices in Bangkok and Phuket, Thailand and affiliated offices in 45 other countries. Visit them at: duensingkippen.com

 

Quote………Recently local authorities have promised to “crack-down” on illegal hotels. If you are a homeowner in Thailand you may think this is not a concern of yours. However, if you are renting your house or condo out – or if you are using a company to own it and are staying it yourself – this does indeed concern you. Local authorities are empowered under two laws to regulate and tax you in such cases: 1) the Hotel Act; and 2) the House and Land Tax Act.

 

Hotel Act

 The Hotel Act (2008) requires any place that provides accommodation for less than a period of one month in exchange for payment is defined as a “Hotel”, regulated by the Hotel Act, and requires a hotel license.

 

There is a limited exception to this if:

 

1) the said place has less than five rooms; and

 

2) cannot accommodate over twenty guests at a time; and

 

3) the income being earned for such is merely “additional income”, 

[Peterw42]

7 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I think that this from a law firm here sums it up well............

 

This from:-  DUENSING KIPPEN………an international law firm specializing in business transaction and dispute resolution matters, with offices in Bangkok and Phuket, Thailand and affiliated offices in 45 other countries. Visit them at: duensingkippen.com

 

Quote………Recently local authorities have promised to “crack-down” on illegal hotels. If you are a homeowner in Thailand you may think this is not a concern of yours. However, if you are renting your house or condo out – or if you are using a company to own it and are staying it yourself – this does indeed concern you. Local authorities are empowered under two laws to regulate and tax you in such cases: 1) the Hotel Act; and 2) the House and Land Tax Act.

 

Hotel Act

 The Hotel Act (2008) requires any place that provides accommodation for less than a period of one month in exchange for payment is defined as a “Hotel”, regulated by the Hotel Act, and requires a hotel license.

 

There is a limited exception to this if:

 

1) the said place has less than five rooms; and

 

2) cannot accommodate over twenty guests at a time; and

 

3) the income being earned for such is merely “additional income”, 

Yes, there are 100s of websites that say the same and, as others have said, the exemptions are to cover 3-4 rooms above a shop-house or someone's granny flat etc. The exceptions are not written to cover Condos.

[Maestro]

Removed an off-topic post.