Jump to content

Amity Treaty work permit


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, TravelerEastWest said:

I read with interest the reports of Americans using the Amity treaty not needing work permits currently.

That is not correct. The Amity treaty only allows a person to own 100% of the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is not correct. The Amity treaty only allows a person to own 100% of the company.

Many restrictions as well on what the company can do in the way of busines.

Google

Amity Treaty Rquirements.

Cannot own land

Cannot be involved in transport, agriculture, comm's plus plus.

Seems it really just makes it easier for an established USA Company to open a branch office in Thailand provided it's business is not on the restricted list.

Edited by overherebc
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points:

 

1.  The Amity Treaty allows "American Companies" to engage in any activity in Thailand that a Thai business can do, except for transportation, etc, which are specifically listed out in the Amity Treaty.  It also does not allow ownership of land.

 

2.  Thai law and Dept of Bus Development regulations have set up requirements for determining if a company qualifies for Amity Treaty status.  These requirements are not found in the Amity Treaty.  They are often cumbersome to meet to the satisfaction of Thai authorities (surprise - not).  Perhaps an example of Thai officialdom imposing requirements that are not found in a treaty (agreement) Thailand has with another country?  Up until the FBA's enactment in 1998, the Ministry of Commerce would simply issue a letter to Amity Treaty companies saying that they can do whatever the Amity Treaty permits them do.  After 1998, the Ministry of Commerce starting issuing special certificates saying, with some specificity, what an Amity Treaty company was permitted to do. Again, perhaps imposing restrictions not found in the Treaty?  To do other activities permitted under the Amity Treaty, an Amity Treaty company would have to incur the expense and inconvenience of amending its foreign business certificate.  Again, none of this in the Amity Treaty itself.

 

3. There are Thai domestic laws that prohibit Amity Treaties from engaging in business activities that should be open under the Amity Treaty.  Tourism is the classic example.  There is nothing in the Amity Treaty that says that tourism related activities are off-limits to Amity Treaty companies.  But Thai authorities still prohibit Amity Treaty companies from engaging in tourism related activities even though this is contrary to its international treaty obligations (which should trump domestic law).

 

Take away point: Amity Treaty companies are useful if your company can qualify, but be careful about hidden traps (rules that inconsistent with the Amity Treaty).

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That is not correct. The Amity treaty only allows a person to own 100% of the company.

Not sure about that per Sunbelt work permits are no longer needed for the labor/employment department

https://www.sunbeltasia.com/amity-treaty-americans-can-qualify-for-no-work-permit?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4pGYlLSE3QIVWUkrCh36zQqgEAEYASAAEgJISfD_BwE

 

But I am not sure which is why I am looking for real life examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

Many restrictions as well on what the company can do in the way of busines.

Google

Amity Treaty Rquirements.

Cannot own land

Cannot be involved in transport, agriculture, comm's plus plus.

Seems it really just makes it easier for an established USA Company to open a branch office in Thailand provided it's business is not on the restricted list.

Yes the no land part is not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TravelerEastWest said:

Not sure about that per Sunbelt work permits are no longer needed for the labor/employment department

https://www.sunbeltasia.com/amity-treaty-americans-can-qualify-for-no-work-permit?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4pGYlLSE3QIVWUkrCh36zQqgEAEYASAAEgJISfD_BwE

 

But I am not sure which is why I am looking for real life examples.

That only mentions directors. Directors are not involved in the day to day operations of a company.

I am sure a managing director would still require a work permit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That only mentions directors. Directors are not involved in the day to day operations of a company.

I am sure a managing director would still require a work permit.

 

Isn't that already covered with the director of a foreign company flying in for a couple of days to attend meetings of say a branch in Thailand. No WP required amity or not amity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Isn't that already covered with the director of a foreign company flying in for a couple of days to attend meetings of say a branch in Thailand. No WP required amity or not amity.

Yes it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That only mentions directors. Directors are not involved in the day to day operations of a company.

I am sure a managing director would still require a work permit.

 

A director may or may not be involved in the day to day operations of a company.  This is why I think this new work permit rule is confusing.  Does it cover (a) only the activities that a person performs as a director (i.e., attending board meetings, singing documents) or (b) does it also cover day to day management of the company.  The latter is generally considered work, and I can't tell if the latter is still subject to the work permit requirement.  And I wouldn't base my decision about this on something Sunbelt publishes on their website.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Horace said:

 

A director may or may not be involved in the day to day operations of a company.  This is why I think this new work permit rule is confusing.  Does it cover (a) only the activities that a person performs as a director (i.e., attending board meetings, singing documents) or (b) does it also cover day to day management of the company.  The latter is generally considered work, and I can't tell if the latter is still subject to the work permit requirement.  And I wouldn't base my decision about this on something Sunbelt publishes on their website.

Exactly - I am seeking real-life examples.

 

A director can be on a board but I really hope that directors are working and very hard at that...

 

Directors can also be department heads such as marketing director.

 

For myself, a work permit is not an issue as I get them every two years and pay someone a fee to do all the paperwork - very easy.

 

But not having Thai shareholders could be a useful planning tool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...