Illegal For Thai Wives Of Foreigners To Own Land

[Burgernev]

3.2 In the case where a Thai national who has an alien spouse, whether legitimate or illegitimate, applies for permission to accept a gift of land during marriage or cohabitation as husband and wife. If the inquiry reveals that the acceptance of the gift is made with the intention that the land will become the separate property or personal property of the donee without resulting in the alien having co-ownership in the land, the competent official will proceed with the registration of rights and juristic act.

My reading of section 3.2 in the event of future legal proceedings or land office enquiry, would come down to: "without resulting in the alien having co-ownership in the land."

In the case of land where a family live in a home, and the declaration was signed with land title in Thai spouse's personal name, then my understanding of the 'co-ownership' section of the Civil and Commercial codes determines that the foreigner does not have "co-ownership" in the land. He will be having 'co-usage', benefitial use or whatever, but is not a co-owner.

However, where the land was later used for another purpose where the foreigner financially benefited from it, for example sub-dividing and developing then the foreigner would be considered having 'co-ownership'.

Burgernev

Edited July 10, 2009 by Burgernev

[tutsiwarrior]

my understanding of thai matrimonial law is that all assets that accrue to couples after marriage are owned 50-50. This being the case a xenophobe at a local thai land office could insist that the money used for the purchase of property had to be in the thai wife's possession prior to marriage with the foreigner husband in order to comply with the prohibition against foreign ownership of property (the 'nominee' clause).

the 'foreigner spouse declaration' appears to be an ill-conceived band aid approach to a legal fundamental that, if enforced, would cause chaos given the number of mixed couples with foreign husbands residing permanently in Thailand.

if there ever was a legal challenge the easiest thing the courts could do is to simply invalidate the declaration document on the grounds that there is no consistency...and we're back to pre-1997 again, or whenever it was that thai spouses of foreigners could not own land...

Edited July 11, 2009 by tutsiwarrior

[Burgernev]

my understanding of thai matrimonial law is that all assets that accrue to couples after marriage are owned 50-50.

Generally yes, but the law specifies certain instances where property (ie: assets) accrued during the marriage will still be classed as 'personal property', for either spouse. One of these specified in the CCC's, Section 1471, is: 'Property acquired by either spouse during marriage through a will or gift'

Burgernev

[tutsiwarrior]

my understanding of thai matrimonial law is that all assets that accrue to couples after marriage are owned 50-50.

Generally yes, but the law specifies certain instances where property (ie: assets) accrued during the marriage will still be classed as 'personal property', for either spouse. One of these specified in the CCC's, Section 1471, is: 'Property acquired by either spouse during marriage through a will or gift'

Burgernev

yeah...that's one of the big questions...somehow I don't think any transfer of funds between spouses (especially if it can be construed that the transfer was for the purpose of buying property when one partner is a foreigner) would be included in this exception...

wedding gifts, or an inheritance from a dead thai relative then no problem...as these would not impact any determination regarding 'the 'nominee' question...

Edited July 11, 2009 by tutsiwarrior

[dsfbrit]

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

Sorry Thaiwanderer, I have no suggestions. I seem to be the Devil's advocate here.

The law in any country is a very intricate thing. It is also very frustrating.

I had a problem a few years back in the Uk. A dispute over property that I owned. I know from experience that the law has nothing to do with what is right or fair. I won the case, but it very nearly wiped me out. All my savings went into the pockets of lawyers and barristers. I couldn't claim costs because the other party had no money to pay.

At that time I did a lot of research into the law and that is why I can see the possibilities of problems here. The law does not mean what you think that it should mean, it simply means what is written. Until a case is tested in court and a precedent set, nobody will know for sure the full implications of how the law is written. Until a case is tested in court we can only guess at any possible problems.

Loong, I could not agree more. My story is similar to yours. I won a case regarding real estate in the UK we should have lost and lost a case we should have won. I guess it all balanced itself out in the end - the 'scales of justice' in action

I seem to recall a lot of aggravation, anger, despair and alcohol involved during the process. it taught me to avoid courts if at all possible. The only obvious winners are the lawyers. its why lawyers are always so keen to offer advice that will help you 'win' a legal case. Hey to test their advice means you and I pay lots of money and if they are wrong - we still pay lots of money!!

Its why I read threads like this and almost despair at the 'simple' answers and views given by some posters.

If ever this claim is tested in a Thai court that a Thai wife cannot own land like this, I will be interested to see just

how some of the 'advice' given here here stands up.

Simply dont 'buy' land in Thailand - rent or buy a condo. Repeat after me...

[loong]

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

Sorry Thaiwanderer, I have no suggestions. I seem to be the Devil's advocate here.

The law in any country is a very intricate thing. It is also very frustrating.

I had a problem a few years back in the Uk. A dispute over property that I owned. I know from experience that the law has nothing to do with what is right or fair. I won the case, but it very nearly wiped me out. All my savings went into the pockets of lawyers and barristers. I couldn't claim costs because the other party had no money to pay.

At that time I did a lot of research into the law and that is why I can see the possibilities of problems here. The law does not mean what you think that it should mean, it simply means what is written. Until a case is tested in court and a precedent set, nobody will know for sure the full implications of how the law is written. Until a case is tested in court we can only guess at any possible problems.

Loong, I could not agree more. My story is similar to yours. I won a case regarding real estate in the UK we should have lost and lost a case we should have won. I guess it all balanced itself out in the end - the 'scales of justice' in action

I seem to recall a lot of aggravation, anger, despair and alcohol involved during the process. it taught me to avoid courts if at all possible. The only obvious winners are the lawyers. its why lawyers are always so keen to offer advice that will help you 'win' a legal case. Hey to test their advice means you and I pay lots of money and if they are wrong - we still pay lots of money!!

Its why I read threads like this and almost despair at the 'simple' answers and views given by some posters.

If ever this claim is tested in a Thai court that a Thai wife cannot own land like this, I will be interested to see just

how some of the 'advice' given here here stands up.

Simply dont 'buy' land in Thailand - rent or buy a condo. Repeat after me...

Somebody that understands, the aggravation, anger, despair is still fresh in my mind as well as the sense of hopelessness even when you know you are in the right.

The way this law is written and the declaration that Farangs and their wives sign is a gigantic can of worms waiting to be opened.

I just hope that it stays sealed shut!

[Artisi]

The way this law is written and the declaration that Farangs and their wives sign is a gigantic can of worms waiting to be opened.

I just hope that it stays sealed shut!

Not singling you or anyone esle out in particular, if this is the thinkng then why get involved at all in any land purchase either thru your wife as sole owner or trying to do it thru your wife as a nominee - stay well away and then you don't have a problem.

[loong]

The way this law is written and the declaration that Farangs and their wives sign is a gigantic can of worms waiting to be opened.

I just hope that it stays sealed shut!

Not singling you or anyone esle out in particular, if this is the thinkng then why get involved at all in any land purchase either thru your wife as sole owner or trying to do it thru your wife as a nominee - stay well away and then you don't have a problem.

At the moment it doesn't affect me. This land was bought by my girlfriends Father before we got together. If the money situation improves, I would like to buy some land and maybe build a new house. It could only be good for the future security of the family and eventually my little stepdaughter. I guess that I would look at giving her Father the money to buy the property with some sort of agreement that the property passes to either my girlfriend or stepdaughter. It won't be for a while, so I will have to think carefully what to do when the time comes.

[thaihome]

The way this law is written and the declaration that Farangs and their wives sign is a gigantic can of worms waiting to be opened.

I just hope that it stays sealed shut!

Not singling you or anyone esle out in particular, if this is the thinkng then why get involved at all in any land purchase either thru your wife as sole owner or trying to do it thru your wife as a nominee - stay well away and then you don't have a problem.

At the moment it doesn't affect me. This land was bought by my girlfriends Father before we got together. If the money situation improves, I would like to buy some land and maybe build a new house. It could only be good for the future security of the family and eventually my little stepdaughter. I guess that I would look at giving her Father the money to buy the property with some sort of agreement that the property passes to either my girlfriend or stepdaughter. It won't be for a while, so I will have to think carefully what to do when the time comes.

I truly think your paranoia is getting the better of you. When you are ready, go buy the land and when you register it, sign the letter of confirmation. That’s all you have to do. It is legal under the law, recognized by virtually every land dept office, and the land dept director has stated publicly that if that is done there is no problem for a Thai married to a foreigner to own land in their name.

Your scheme of giving the money to the father with “sort of agreement that the property passes to either my girlfriend or stepdaughter” is closer to a nominee setup then just giving your wife the money to buy the land and sign the confirmation.

TH

[loong]

I truly think your paranoia is getting the better of you. When you are ready, go buy the land and when you register it, sign the letter of confirmation. That’s all you have to do. It is legal under the law, recognized by virtually every land dept office, and the land dept director has stated publicly that if that is done there is no problem for a Thai married to a foreigner to own land in their name.

There's no paranoia here. Just concern.

I certainly do not intend to sign a declaration that the money was hers before we were together or not communal property. That would be making a false declaration and although it will probably be ok, you can never be sure. If the declaration was that I had no claim on the land, that would be different.

[Artisi]

I truly think your paranoia is getting the better of you. When you are ready, go buy the land and when you register it, sign the letter of confirmation. That's all you have to do. It is legal under the law, recognized by virtually every land dept office, and the land dept director has stated publicly that if that is done there is no problem for a Thai married to a foreigner to own land in their name.

There's no paranoia here. Just concern.

I certainly do not intend to sign a declaration that the money was hers before we were together or not communal property. That would be making a false declaration and although it will probably be ok, you can never be sure. If the declaration was that I had no claim on the land, that would be different.

I don't understand the concern, what you sign is that the money is her personal property which means you don't have nor can you have (by law) any claim to the land. Give your wife the money (out of the goodess of your heart) then it's her money and she is free to do what she wants with it - ie, buy a plot of land.

[Wolfie]

Easy and only way. You and your wife have to go to the land department where they will give you a form to sign saying that you have no rights on the land. All the problems and doubts of those who posted here will be solved in a few minutes.

Ok, i've read through this thread and i'm still confused... so here is my scenario...

Recently Married, Brand new house is ready to be transferred into the Wife's name. Mortgage loan is approved in the wife's name and ready to sign (me as co-signatory). As i am the main bread winner in the family i'm going to be paying the mortgage.

We go down to the land office, and we will be required to sign the letter of confirmation thingie... my question is, does this cover only the land itself or the property as a whole?

Will the 'house' remain a marital asset (i.e. 'ours') and the land it sits apon be solely hers? This is how i read things, but i just need a sanity check as legal stuff can be a touch confusing sometimes.

If things go wrong and we end up divorcing (i dont plan for this to happen - but who knows the future, right?) will the value of the 'house' be part of the split or can i expect to walk away with nothing?

Just looking for a little clarity in the muddy waters of confusion here, thanks!

[tavarich]

Easy and only way. You and your wife have to go to the land department where they will give you a form to sign saying that you have no rights on the land. All the problems and doubts of those who posted here will be solved in a few minutes.

Ok, i've read through this thread and i'm still confused... so here is my scenario...

Recently Married, Brand new house is ready to be transferred into the Wife's name. Mortgage loan is approved in the wife's name and ready to sign (me as co-signatory). As i am the main bread winner in the family i'm going to be paying the mortgage.

We go down to the land office, and we will be required to sign the letter of confirmation thingie... my question is, does this cover only the land itself or the property as a whole?

Will the 'house' remain a marital asset (i.e. 'ours') and the land it sits apon be solely hers? This is how i read things, but i just need a sanity check as legal stuff can be a touch confusing sometimes.

If things go wrong and we end up divorcing (i dont plan for this to happen - but who knows the future, right?) will the value of the 'house' be part of the split or can i expect to walk away with nothing?

Just looking for a little clarity in the muddy waters of confusion here, thanks!

STOP

Get a lawyer before you sign anything. A good lawyer will set up a usfruct so you can have access to the house if something goes wrong.

[InterestedObserver]

Easy and only way. You and your wife have to go to the land department where they will give you a form to sign saying that you have no rights on the land. All the problems and doubts of those who posted here will be solved in a few minutes.

Ok, i've read through this thread and i'm still confused... so here is my scenario...

Recently Married, Brand new house is ready to be transferred into the Wife's name. Mortgage loan is approved in the wife's name and ready to sign (me as co-signatory). As i am the main bread winner in the family i'm going to be paying the mortgage.

We go down to the land office, and we will be required to sign the letter of confirmation thingie... my question is, does this cover only the land itself or the property as a whole?

Will the 'house' remain a marital asset (i.e. 'ours') and the land it sits apon be solely hers? This is how i read things, but i just need a sanity check as legal stuff can be a touch confusing sometimes.

If things go wrong and we end up divorcing (i dont plan for this to happen - but who knows the future, right?) will the value of the 'house' be part of the split or can i expect to walk away with nothing?

Just looking for a little clarity in the muddy waters of confusion here, thanks!

The Land Department is primarily interested in money used to buy the land since a foreigner cannot legally own land. A foreigner can legally purchase and own a house in Thailand; hence, there is not much interest in those funds except perhaps the origin. Since you are already married, the transfer of the house into your wife's name will create marital property (50/50 split upon divorce). As said, consult a lawyer, you really need to provide a legal way to remain in the house if trouble should rear it's ugly head.

Edited July 29, 2009 by InterestedObserver

[Wolfie]

Thanks for the comments, InterestedObserver, that was the kind of feedback i was hoping for. I dont anticipate any issues on the money front as there is documented proof showing where the money came from and the rest is mortgaged anyway

[ivowatson]

Easy and only way. You and your wife have to go to the land department where they will give you a form to sign saying that you have no rights on the land. All the problems and doubts of those who posted here will be solved in a few minutes.

Ok, i've read through this thread and i'm still confused... so here is my scenario...

Recently Married, Brand new house is ready to be transferred into the Wife's name. Mortgage loan is approved in the wife's name and ready to sign (me as co-signatory). As i am the main bread winner in the family i'm going to be paying the mortgage.

We go down to the land office, and we will be required to sign the letter of confirmation thingie... my question is, does this cover only the land itself or the property as a whole?

Will the 'house' remain a marital asset (i.e. 'ours') and the land it sits apon be solely hers? This is how i read things, but i just need a sanity check as legal stuff can be a touch confusing sometimes.

STOP

Get a lawyer before you sign anything. A good lawyer will set up a usfruct so you can have access to the house if something goes wrong.

Maybe I'm confused too but IMO it's not possible to set up an usufruct on a mortgaged house. Probably there are different solutions though. Best to contact a lawyer. Or you could do as I did and just sign. As I understand, in case of a divorce, the property will be divided 50/50 between husband and wife, even when the foreigner signed away his rights to the land (and house).

[Arkady]

Easy and only way. You and your wife have to go to the land department where they will give you a form to sign saying that you have no rights on the land. All the problems and doubts of those who posted here will be solved in a few minutes.

Ok, i've read through this thread and i'm still confused... so here is my scenario...

Recently Married, Brand new house is ready to be transferred into the Wife's name. Mortgage loan is approved in the wife's name and ready to sign (me as co-signatory). As i am the main bread winner in the family i'm going to be paying the mortgage.

We go down to the land office, and we will be required to sign the letter of confirmation thingie... my question is, does this cover only the land itself or the property as a whole?

Will the 'house' remain a marital asset (i.e. 'ours') and the land it sits apon be solely hers? This is how i read things, but i just need a sanity check as legal stuff can be a touch confusing sometimes.

If things go wrong and we end up divorcing (i dont plan for this to happen - but who knows the future, right?) will the value of the 'house' be part of the split or can i expect to walk away with nothing?

Just looking for a little clarity in the muddy waters of confusion here, thanks!

The form has a space to write in the number of the title deed. So your declaration applies to whatever property is on the deed. Normally the house is on the same title deed as the land but you can organize a separate deed for a house, although in practice the Land Dept will probably only agree to issue this in the case of a new build where the house number is being registered for the first time. In order for a foreigner to own a house, he needs a long term lease or usufruct on the land. Foreigners can own a house and it could be part of the marital property, if it is on a separate deed. In this case you should not sign the declaration for the house.

Personally I think a life time usufruct is the best fix, if your Land Office will agree to it. This can be done at nil consideration which means no tax is payable. With a usufruct registered on the deed, no one will buy the land or accept it as collateral for a loan (a frequent problem with Thai-farang couples). There is also less need to try to own the house separately, if you have a usufruct, as it gives you the right to use everything on the land.

If you have not yet registered your marriage in Thailand, it is probably advisable to buy the land, sign the Letter of Confirmation as declared cohabitees (specifically included in the wording of the form in Thai - "a couple whether legally married or not legally married" - the English version doesn't make absolute sense) and then register a usufruct on it before you register your marriage. Under the Civil and Commercial Code any agreement between husband and wife can be voided. This could still be done in the case of mere cohabitees but would be a less clear cut legal argument. If it is a major purchase, doing it shortly before registering your marriage also makes sense from the tax point of view, as you can argue the money being given to your partner to purchase the property is sin sot and avoid the risk that she will be taxed on the gift which are taxable in Thailand but sin sot is not.

If you do things this way, in the event of divorce, the property is your wife's but you can legally stay living in the house for the rest of your life or rent it out and she will not be able to realize the value. If you also own the house separately and it is purchased after your marriage, you will be entitled to half the appraised value but the Land Dept usually puts a lowish appraised value on houses relative to land and the value might be subject to deprecation too. If you completed the transaction before marriage, you would be entitled to the entire value of the house. Owning the house separately might be of help in dividing up property in some cases. However, it is unlikely to result in a realizatable asset, since no one would want to buy the house off you, as they would have to ask the owner of the land to transfer the lease to them which she would not be legally obliged to do.

If you are not familiar with the concept of usufruct, there is a pretty good explanation on Isaan Lawyers' widesite (no connection with myself). I see this as a loophole that may not last, as usufructs are clearly intended for agricultural land and the law doesn't allow more than 30 year leases. As for the Letter of Confirmation I agree with other posters that this is very much a temporary band aid that could be challenged legally. Technically under the CCC a farang husband could also argue that the agreement to hand over property he paid for could be anulled as it was an agreement between man and wife. Tricky because by doing that you and your partner might be vulnerable to prosecution under the Land Act for buying property for a foreigner but some farangs, who didn't sign the Letter have apparently already successfully got the value of land they paid for divided up on divorce. A more permanent solution will eventually have to be found which might make it more difficult for Thais with foreign spouses to buy land at all. Meanwhile, since Thai law is very rarely retroactive I think that those who sign the Letter are likely to remain free from the risk of prosecution under the Land Act.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Arkady

[ivowatson]

Personally I think a life time usufruct is the best fix, if your Land Office will agree to it.

I'm affraid the bank issuing the mortgage will not agree to it.

[Arkady]

Personally I think a life time usufruct is the best fix, if your Land Office will agree to it.

I'm affraid the bank issuing the mortgage will not agree to it.

You are right. If you buy with a mortgage in a Thai partner's name, the bank will put a lien on the title deed and you will not be able to organize a usufruct, long-term lease or a separate deed for the house without their permission which they will obviously not give as they want to be able to re-possess and sell without encumbrances. My comments only apply to cash purchasers. At least, if your wife can get a mortgage, you are limiting your risk as you would only be in the hole for the deposit and payments to date, if you got divorced. From that you can deduct what you would have paid in rent. You can just stop paying the mortgage and vaporise.

[Jeffro008]

A tempest in a tea pot. NOTHING has changed. It only restates that nominees are illegal. Nominees have always been illegal whether the nominee is your wife or not. This only highlights that bogus companies will eventually be prosecuted. My wife has a number of properties that are in her name and I have no claim to them. I signed the document that I have no financial in HER properties. Why this must be rehashed time and time again is beyond me. The bottom line is that you CANNOT own land in Thailand unless you trust your Thai wife.

If you trust the wife. i think i can. what can you do to have the properties with your name on to be any effect at a later date. ie wife has placed the kids name on or included there names on one or the other properties along with her brother(he's a school teacher and cheaper loanes through that).

She says to have my name on will cost a volvume of monet not worth it. She and i don't mind to have it all to the kids. Whats the advice for this if she or brother or i die. I've no 'will' but we have large family insurance and retiement fund package started only a few years ago witch covers us all except her brother.

Regards Jeff

[slipperx]

So what is to stop you agreeing to take a 30 year lease on the proposed bit of land and registering the lease at the same time you buy the land. The poroceeds from the lease providing the funds for the purchase of the land to which you as a foreigner have no right thereafter but you can still sell the remaining term on the lease or rent the property out should you fall out with your wifey or girlfriend.

If a Thai has bought land with money that did not come from a foreigner, no problem.

But if the money is supplied by a foreigner and then the land is leased to the foreigner there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that this was an attempt to circumvent the law and definitely a case of using a nominee.

That is only my opinion of course.

A lawyer may well tell you something different, but then that would still only be a lawyer's opinion until tested in a court of law.

Lawyers are not infallible. 2 lawyers representing opposing sides in a court action may well be advising their clients that they are in the right, but they can't both be right.

Hmm - I don't think that is what a nominee is - you have a lease and the Thai has the freehold - your money has provided the funds for the purchase but you have only the lease not the freehold. I think this complies with the law except of course this being Thailand anything to do with foreigners is left as open to interpretation as possible in order to enable Thais to benefit to the greatest degree.

[slipperx]

Thai woman can own land, this is the law, notwithstanding they have a foreign husband/partner in live or not. There is no question about it. ONLY if a Thai woman then can lease the land to the foreign husband is the big question. The Land Regulation itself say that in case the officer suspects that the lease or document applied to register with the land officer is subject to a hidden purchase of a foreigner the officer has the right to refuse such request. BUT in such case one can appeal the decision of his as the Regulations of the land officer say that in such case he shall ask the Land Department in BGKK to decide on this matter and they would have to start investing the wife of where funds are from etc. IN order to get clarity about the CURRENT interpretation of the Land Department rules we will send a letter to the Head Office in BGKK, the legal department asking for written decision on such matter. Will advertise the answer in here once we got it with engl translation.

Well maybe I have this completely wrong then. What you seem to be saying is that a woman cannot sell a lease to a foreigner or mabe you mean a wife cannot sell a lease on land to her husband and here I assume that you mean that the funds for purchase are given to the wife / woman or derive from the lease. I don't see that really - what difference who sells a foreigner a lease - if the foreigner only holds the lease and the land is bought by a Thai unreservedly with no come back in law to the foreigner what is the problem - how is that holding the land as a nominee since the foreigner has no right to the land other than his legal purchase of a lease which is allowed in Thai law anyway. I wish this would be clarified properly and clearly but I fear the Thais don;t want to be clear about anything - it leaves more wriggle room and less security for the foreigner - and they are really uptight about giving foreigners any security about anything.

[thaiwanderer]

Well maybe I have this completely wrong then. What you seem to be saying is that a woman cannot sell a lease to a foreigner or mabe you mean a wife cannot sell a lease on land to her husband and here I assume that you mean that the funds for purchase are given to the wife / woman or derive from the lease. I don't see that really - what difference who sells a foreigner a lease - if the foreigner only holds the lease and the land is bought by a Thai unreservedly with no come back in law to the foreigner what is the problem - how is that holding the land as a nominee since the foreigner has no right to the land other than his legal purchase of a lease which is allowed in Thai law anyway. I wish this would be clarified properly and clearly but I fear the Thais don;t want to be clear about anything - it leaves more wriggle room and less security for the foreigner - and they are really uptight about giving foreigners any security about anything.

You write merely of 'Thais' as if perhaps all Thais made the decision for the benefit all Thais. Regardless of which Thais are 'uptight' where they are it is not about giving foreigners security or withholding it, rather retaining own overall security first an foremost.

In limited circumstances foreigners are allowed to own land and there is no outright prohibition whatsoever on foreigners owning land. Yes there are laws in Thailand that do not favour non-Thais but do they have to always be viewed as 'anti-foreigner' rather than 'pro-Thai'? The net affect may often be the same but the first (of course not the only) priority in creating laws should usually arise from concern for the country's own citizens or a portion of them at least rather than foreigners.

Given the conflict of laws and practice involving land and marriage it is also not so clear as to say a foreign husband has no claim at all on land owned by his Thai wife.

The lack of clarity and consistency in the law is of course a big issue. The usual refrain of 'nominees are illegal' is incorrect and of no use other than to give a general idea. However feigned ignorance and deliberate efforts to circumvent the law cannot be explained by lack of clarity in the law. The land code refers to 'when it appears any person has acquired land in the place of an alien' and the foreign business act refers to 'aiding and abetting foreigners' and 'holding shares on behalf of foreigners' 'in order for the foreigners to operate the business.....'.

How many foreigners who have invested with a view to protecting their investment and retain use and control of the land (whatever the structure) openly explained the structure to the land office or would be happy to do so?

I can understand a genuine desire for clarity when a husband wishes to gift his wife some land (and despite the guff of an official in the press there is such clarity), but if the husband is then to have a genuine lease on that land I see no real problem in registering that interest. Assuming of course that the husband completes the declaration of no interest upon the wife's purchasing the land and there is then a genuine seperate payment from husband to wife for the lease (the payment for the freehold being a gift with no strings remember). But how many that complain are actually doing this rather than expecting the lease to be given for no payment (payment for the freehold does not count, as that is a gift and a separate transaction) or a small tax payment for the lease (based on a criminal declaration to government officials of the lease payment itself having occured)?

In any country in the world if the declared elements of a transaction are legal are you seriously suggesting there is really no possibility of any undeclared / hidden elements (formal or otherwise and in country or offshore) and that any government should take declarations on face value alone? Try it with your taxman.