Foreign Ownership

[Baht Simpson]

Notwithstanding the normal requirements for foreign ownership are there any restrictions on the number of properties a foreigner can own. Could you say, own a house and a couple of condominiums if you had the cash?

I guess if there were no restrictions at all you would get into the territory of property development, which could be easily done by Thais.

Any unusual tax implications?

[KevinN]

If you are a private citizen farang like on retirement and not a company owner,you can not own a house, but that is all I can say as you didn't give much personal info,last time someone asked about ownership and some folks told him,then he came wise ass back that he knew all about it and the house was for his Thai wife.

[Sumitr Man]

Baht:

In a nutshell - the tax implications obviously depend on what you are doing with the property. If you are renting the property out, then there is income tax considerations. Also, if the property is furnished, this has a bearing on the tax situation - service and subject to VAT.

As for limitations on ownership, there USED to be a limitation on the % of a condominium block that a farang could own - at 49% (I believe). However, it is my understanding that this limitation was done away with circa. 1999. That said, I have seen other still cite this limitation - so check this one out.

For residential property, if you are Thai, no problems. Assuming that you qualify for land ownership under the other exemptions to the Land Code [noticeably the Ministerial Regulation dated 18th January 2002 and inhertiance as provided for under the Code itself] then, subject to Section 87 (I think - or thereabouts, I don't have the Code to-hand) aliens may acquire upto 1 Rai of land.

However, overall, you need to worry about the tax implications more than the ownership and where possible, try and keep your leases to less than 3 years if you don't want to declare the income [any lease over 3 years needs to be registered with the Land Dept].

Hope this helps.

SM

[Please note that you should not rely on any information above - it is merely provided so that you know what questions to ask a financial advisor or lawyer in THEIR professional capacity]

[Harry Palmer]

Baht Simpson... As a farang, provided you have the capital to form a registered company in the LoS, you may acquire as much property as your finances will allow.

[Baht Simpson]

Thanks for the replies. I'm thinking of retiring to LOS in the next couple of years and would like to purchase a property in the north west and maybe another in a beach resort. It's nice to know that a farang can hold more than one property. That's interesting information on the tax situation Sumitr Man. I guess it might change over time so I'll have to keep updated on that.

Thanks again.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Thanks for the replies. I'm thinking of retiring to LOS in the next couple of years and would like to purchase a property in the north west and maybe another in a beach resort. It's nice to know that a farang can hold more than one property. That's interesting information on the tax situation Sumitr Man. I guess it might change over time so I'll have to keep updated on that.

Thanks again.

Keep a good watch for changes.

[stumonster]

I was talking to a bloke last night who mentioned buying an off the shelf United states company to take advantage of the extra rights the US seems to have in thailand.

Does anybody have any experience with this, or comments...pitfalls etc?

this is in regard to purchasing property and assets in thailand.

[Sumitr Man]

stumonster: Is the "bloke" himself an American? If no, is he Thai? If no and no, will he be located in Thailand? Also, will he be director/ceo or just employee?

In short, I think this 'bloke" needs to do a lot more homework. If only it were that simple and all...

[Sunbelt Asia]

An Thai company formed under Amity CANNOT own land but it can own any type of building. However ANY person or corporation can own any type of building in their name with the land office under Thai law so he would not be needing an Amity company to do so. The foreigner can own the structure (for example a house) erected on the land. Certainty of possession of land and house is assured by being the owner of the house. If arranged as above then the house will be separate from the land, and will not be a component part under the Civil Law. Ownership of buildings can be established with the land office and the Lessor cannot seize the house upon expiration of the lease.

Buildings other than condominiums do not have any form of title document, but their sale or long lease can be registered at the Amphur (district) land office. Proof of ownership, must be established either from proof of construction or a document showing sale-purchase (do not confuse this with the House License document, which is only a register of the house occupants).

Transfer of a building, as distinct from its land, requires the posting of 30 days public notice (to see if anyone wishes to contest the ownership). Again just to confirm this, foreign nationals (aliens) may own any building (as distinct from its land) and may register such transfer of ownership into their names at the local district office.

www.sunbeltasia.com

[lemel]

sumitrman

As for limitations on ownership, there USED to be a limitation on the % of a condominium block that a farang could own - at 49% (I believe). However, it is my understanding that this limitation was done away with circa. 1999. That said, I have seen other still cite this limitation - so check this one out.

For your info

From April 27th it has gone back to 49%

[Sumitr Man]

Thanks Lemel.

So, is it back to the bad old days of doing due diligence on the holding company's shareholders and AoAs (for any limitation set out in the AoAs), or are people just taking a general undertaking and representation from the vendor? Also, what's the current market remedy if the transfer cannot be registered? To my mind, none of the initial problems that existed have been eradicated, so why have they changed back to a system that was shown to be failing?