Possible change in property/company law in 2020. Is this true??

[Tchooptip]

4 hours ago, inThailand said:

Its pure fake news.

 

So if Coca cola wants to build a new factory here, they can't buy and control the land? Are you nuts! Use some common sense.

 No offence, but Coca Cola, one of the most powerful companies in the world, employs thousands of Thais all over the country from north to south! Selling millions billions of ฿ of beverages in almost every shops in the country... and you take that as a comparison with an old retired couple who created a small phoney company, which has no commercial activity at all just to circumvent the law on foreigners owning land, I admit that finding a worse example would be difficult impossible ????

[inThailand]

9 minutes ago, Tchooptip said:

 No offence, but Coca Cola, one of the most powerful companies in the world, employs thousands of Thais all over the country from north to south! Selling millions billions of ฿ of beverages in almost every shops in the country... and you take that as a comparison with an old retired couple who created a small phoney company, which has no commercial activity at all just to circumvent the law on foreigners owning land, I admit that finding a worse example would be difficult impossible ????

The op said no foreigners will be allowed to be director or shareholder of a Thai company. So this only applies to the poor falangs owning a bungalow, a drop in the bucket compared to foreign investment. Are existing companies grandfathered or only applies to new companies?

 

BS. This a troll post with no facts to support such.

 

[inThailand]

4 hours ago, Skallywag said:

No foreigner, company director or not,  is allowed to "own" land in Thailand.  Only 30 year leases AFAIK.

Being the "director of a company" that is 51% Thai, can any non-Thai be considered an "owner"?  

Do not know, am asking 

 

You set up a Thai company as foreigner or foreign company, ex Coca Cola to hold the land. The company owns the Land, and makes, decisions on this asset as well as any other assets, as a course of business. The idea foreign companies will give all control to Thais is ridiculous. They will depart here faster than falangs who cant get a visa.

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, inThailand said:

Its pure fake news.

 

So if Coca cola wants to build a new factory here, they can't buy and control the land? Are you nuts! Use some common sense.

Not a good response, If foreign companies want to establish factories here and create hundreds of jobs then many of the regulations are different and not surprising. 

 

Ultimately of course Coca Cola would want to have some control, also not surprising. 

[stevenl]

25 minutes ago, inThailand said:

The op said no foreigners will be allowed to be director or shareholder of a Thai company. So this only applies to the poor falangs owning a bungalow, a drop in the bucket compared to foreign investment. Are existing companies grandfathered or only applies to new companies?

 

BS. This a troll post with no facts to support such.

 

This is not a troll post, this is a genuine post with a genuine poster asking a question.

[Parsve]

 It is virtually impossible for a foreign national to own land in Thailand. There are certain exemptions under the Board of Investment scheme; there is also a general exemption whereby a foreigner may be able to own certain small pieces of land so long as it is signed off by the Minister of the Interior here in the Kingdom. Very, very rare that that is going to happen.

 

Then about a foreign company owning a house and the land. The company have to at least 51 % be owned of thais, so in this case the house and land is not owned of a foreigner either and two to three years  ago there where discussion about to stop company owned house where companies only, or main mission was to own an estate. If you buy a house in a company name you should also be aware of that a company has to pay an annual tax which is a percentage of the purchase price. If you by the house as a private person you not need to pay that tax.

 

To answer your qustion, yes, I would not be surprised if that comes up on the table again. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Parsve
Change of one word

[david555]

1 hour ago, inThailand said:

The op said no foreigners will be allowed to be director or shareholder of a Thai company. So this only applies to the poor falangs owning a bungalow, a drop in the bucket compared to foreign investment. Are existing companies grandfathered or only applies to new companies?

 

BS. This a troll post with no facts to support such.

 

"Are existing companies grandfathered or only applies to new companies?"

 

first part answered maybe …?

[david555]

1 hour ago, inThailand said:

You set up a Thai company as foreigner or foreign company, ex Coca Cola to hold the land. The company owns the Land, and makes, decisions on this asset as well as any other assets, as a course of business. The idea foreign companies will give all control to Thais is ridiculous. They will depart here faster than falangs who cant get a visa.

https://www.interactivethailand.com/corporate/foreign-business-ownership-in-thailand/

All the different options for company (4) from small to investments under BOIT rules , and yes in big investments land ownership seems to be controlled  possible  

[ThomasThBKK]

Since many big hotels are BOI companies and 100% own the land they reside on and are also majority foreign owned AND at the same time they just passed a law that makes ownership for foreigners easier (sap ing sith) - i very much doubt it.

 

I believe this to be a case of a malicous land office, you can see the same in pattaya, these are simply mafia run areas in thailand that should be avoided. Pattaya land office also refused to do certain services like a hotel license or usufruct for foreigners, while it's simple to get in real thailand. 
Best to be compared to certain malicous land/air entries into thailand...

 

But hey i used logic - so on the other hand nothing would surprise me either and i wouldn't bet 1 usd on it.

 

 

[natway09]

But you can be a 49% shareholder can you not?

As a 49% shareholder unless a Thai shareholder crosses the floor you have no control anyway.

That is why when you start a company ensure have a minor shareholder who you know will always give you his or her proxy

[BestB]

3 hours ago, baansgr said:

And the Mrs has a noodle stall in the front garden, or sewing machine on the terrace....hey presto, its a valid working company with minimal turnover

It’s not what mrs has but what activity you show, what turnover, staff etc .

[BestB]

2 hours ago, david555 said:

But that does not change anything on the main topic ….as it points out that foreigner can no more be in the director's seat (if true rumor...)….. so the Thai misses can ….. so behave good to her ...or else ….????

You keep missing the point. Foreigner can be director just not for companies which sole business and activity is owning a house.

 

For example if you owned 5 houses and were showing you were a realestate , declaring rents for all houses then you could be a director . 
 

But if you owned 5 houses, under company name and showed all you did was owned the 5 houses with no business activity , then you can not

 

All they were talking about was closing the loophole so foreigners can not own land .

 

initially plan was to go after companies with nominees, but it’s very hard to do and hard to prove. 
 

this new idea appears to be easier way to tackle what they see as a problem 

[Destiny1990]

15 minutes ago, BestB said:

You keep missing the point. Foreigner can be director just not for companies which sole business and activity is owning a house.

 

For example if you owned 5 houses and were showing you were a realestate , declaring rents for all houses then you could be a director . 
 

But if you owned 5 houses, under company name and showed all you did was owned the 5 houses with no business activity , then you can not

 

All they were talking about was closing the loophole so foreigners can not own land .

 

initially plan was to go after companies with nominees, but it’s very hard to do and hard to prove. 
 

this new idea appears to be easier way to tackle what they see as a problem 

Sounds like if you’re saying you can buy land and house in a company name as long as u rent it out and declare the rental income because now the company has an activity?

[BestB]

46 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Sounds like if you’re saying you can buy land and house in a company name as long as u rent it out and declare the rental income because now the company has an activity?

yup, this is what i am saying, If its company that is trading and showing business then it would be ok. 

 

Perhaps they may require some to see little more than just being rented, but more being an agent or in the business or renting ie real estate.

 

dormant companies owning houses are the targets

 

[Destiny1990]

37 minutes ago, BestB said:

yup, this is what i am saying, If its company that is trading and showing business then it would be ok. 

 

Perhaps they may require some to see little more than just being rented, but more being an agent or in the business or renting ie real estate.

 

dormant companies owning houses are the targets

 

Not sure if what your saying will fly.

 

[BestB]

6 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Not sure if what your saying will fly.

 

Will have to wait  and see, but makes total sense with what they doing. as oppose to hunting companies with nominees.

[Destiny1990]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

Will have to wait  and see, but makes total sense with what they doing. as oppose to hunting companies with nominees.

Sure shift from local nominees to the foreigner is more rewarding but anyway buying with a company a land with a house is far what i know not legal even if it gets rented out.

I think what we need is an non partial online lawyer????.

 

[kevinmartyn]

Forget the land and house issues that Thailand is stuck in and buy in Malaysia. 

[BestB]

23 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Sure shift from local nominees to the foreigner is more rewarding but anyway buying with a company a land with a house is far what i know not legal even if it gets rented out.

I think what we need is an non partial online lawyer????.

 

I did not mean 1 house, scroll back a few posts , I said a few houses making you a real estate with property. I also do not think one house will fly even if rented out. 
 

but I am only guessing as to what criteria’s would apply.

 

in my view any company that is really trading will not be affected only those who are Solely using loopholes to own land 

 

I am certain if you owned an apartment block in company name you would not be affected as it is a business, where as 1 house is an investment 

 

but again, I do not think they were after rewards hunting foreigners, just more practical and productive than hunting nominees and needed proof that they were nominees.

Edited October 16, 2019 by BestB

[swissie]

"dormant companies owning houses are the targets".
Right on!
But this thing has been surfacing occasinally among certain "lawmakers" in Bangkok. (Comes and goes). But yes, as closing "loopholes" has been high on the agenda recently, this might be next on the list. We shall see.

[ThomasThBKK]

20 hours ago, swissie said:

"dormant companies owning houses are the targets".
Right on!
But this thing has been surfacing occasinally among certain "lawmakers" in Bangkok. (Comes and goes). But yes, as closing "loopholes" has been high on the agenda recently, this might be next on the list. We shall see.

 

That's nothing new tho.

Nominee shareholder structures are simply not allowed, no matter for what type of company, it's not even a loophole - it's strictly illegal.

[smutcakes]

On 10/16/2019 at 12:32 PM, scorecard said:

Not a good response, If foreign companies want to establish factories here and create hundreds of jobs then many of the regulations are different and not surprising. 

 

Ultimately of course Coca Cola would want to have some control, also not surprising. 

Coca cola and the alike can own land freehold in a 100% foregin owned Thai company. That is a regulation specific for induatrial estates in Thailand. All foregin manafacturers within industrial estates own 100% freehold without even needing BOI approval 

[Cashboy]

I would think that this rule is only for companies formed ONLY for the purpose of holding land for a foreigner.

i.e. using it it to get round ownership (well 49% ownership) of land.

 

Otherwise no foreigner could be a shareholder of a legitimate trading company that lets say had land with a factory on it.

 

There have similarly been plenty of legal cases where the courts have been aware that the company was formed as an instrument for the sole purpose of a foreigner to hold land.  The result being the loss of the land for the foreigner.

And I understand that a limited company has to have at least 5 shareholders.  The foreigners can only hold 49% so if the Thais want to take the land away from you they could at a General Meeting of shareholders.

 

I would think the only way to secure your money invested on the land would be that you have have loaned the company money (enabling it to buy the land) and have a fixed and floating charge over the assets (including land and building) of the company.  This would mean that if the building was to be sold, you would have to be paid back; or if the company went bankrupt, you would be a preferential creditor.  That is how it would work in the west  ( well UK for sure ) but not sure in Thailand.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Cashboy

[Halfaboy]

Not sure if contracts work out this way in Thailand ....