Property Investment

[Nepal4me]

I know some guys that went the company route, all they do is worry about what future changes in the law may mean to them or the property they live in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know a lot of guys that went the company route, all they do is laugh about all the people that worry about doing this and they money they are making/have made. They understand the law might change, they understand it's not likely and are comfortable with their exposure.

[Gary A]

I too have bought land in Thailand. It is not mine and is in my wife's name. Am I worried about it? Not nearly as much as if I had set up a bogus company and had to pay taxes.

I realize I have no claim on that land. If we were to split up it wouldn't change my lifestyle so it's not a big deal. The person who originally wrote not to invest more than you can comfortably walk away from was dead on the mark.

My wife tried unsuccessfully to have my name put on her land and house papers. She is worried what I would do if she were to die. I wouldn't live there anyway without her so it doesn't matter to me.

I bought Land in Issan and built a house on it, is it in my name? No.

Do I care ? No.

If it was in my name and I was able to kick the wife out if it all went pearshaped, would I be able to sell it, would I want to live in the same place as all my ex wifes family, would anybody be willing to pay the money that it cost me to build ?  No.

Would I want sleepless night knowing I am flouting the laws of Thailand, and that one day my bogus company would be investigated and found to be a front for skirting the law ?  No.

I like to know where I stand, and I'm perfectly happy the way it is.

I know some guys that went the company route, all they do is worry about what future changes in the law may mean to them or the property they live in.

They can't afford to lose it, maybe they should have rented.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Skipper]

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair, an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

[johnnyk]

My fave story from BKK.

A rich family built a luxury condo tower with adjoining outdoor swimming pool, sold units for big prices.

Family maintained majority ownership of the building, renting out unsold units.

Evvybody happy, luxury condo hab swim pool.

Later...fambly unnastan swim pool cost money.

Fambly fill in swim pool, now hab 7/11.

[Gary A]

I don't see much risk in a condo. It is in your name. As far as location that could be a problem. I bought mine in a large complex. It was established, well maintained and security is great. I think you would be better off to buy an upscale unit with at least 60 square metere. The shoe boxes would not be comfortable to live in nor is the resale that great.

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Nepal4me]

I don't see much risk in a condo. It is in your name. As far as location that could be a problem. I bought mine in a large complex. It was established, well maintained and security is great. I think you would be better off to buy an upscale unit with at least 60 square metere. The shoe boxes would not be comfortable to live in nor is the resale that great. 

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the last 3 posts belong to a different thread?????

This thread was about buying land.

[johnnyk]

I don't see much risk in a condo. It is in your name. As far as location that could be a problem. I bought mine in a large complex. It was established, well maintained and security is great. I think you would be better off to buy an upscale unit with at least 60 square metere. The shoe boxes would not be comfortable to live in nor is the resale that great. 

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the last 3 posts belong to a different thread?????

This thread was about buying land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the thread is about property and condos are property, so not really off base.

Too bad Leafs still suck.

BTW, were you alive when they last drank from the cup?

[Nepal4me]

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the last 3 posts belong to a different thread?????

This thread was about buying land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the thread is about property and condos are property, so not really off base.

Too bad Leafs still suck.

BTW, were you alive when they last drank from the cup?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems the continuity of the thread did a 90 degree turn with The Skip's post. The post was about foriegners buying land. His comment on buying a condo was out of the blue and didn't follow from the previous posts so I thought maybe he just got his posts mixed up. Probably not the end of the world tho

Yup I was alive in 67, grew up rooting for the Leafs. They really still suck, especially that big cry baby Lindros. Ok, now we're really off topic

[SamuiRes]

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is probably as big an issue as any as planning controls do not seem to exist to prevent this. Looking for an investment and holiday home, this is as good a reason as any to buy on a managed development as opposed to going it alone.

However, back on topic - it is perfectly legal to own the building as opposed to the land so the Thai company owns the land on which you pay rent, therefore the Thai company is trading and pays tax on the rent. You have leased the land in your own name which is also perfectly legal, the lease of the land is registered at the Land Office for 30 years plus two 30 year options. Your ownership of the building cannot be disputed - it is perfectly legal under Thai Law. The Thai company is trading so is also legitimate.

The alternative is to lease the land from a third party and register the lease and the options at the Land Office. Again perfectly legal. My one concern here is exercising the options in 30 years time. If the original land owner cannot be found or has died and the family are reluctant to go to the Land Office to exercise the renewal or the land has changed hands etc. what do you do? I have not had a satisfactory answer to that apart from go to court and I am not aware of any legal precedents to help. If you control the Thai company as stated previously this issue cannot come about.

[johnnyk]

The alternative is to lease the land from a third party and register the lease and  the options at the Land Office. Again perfectly legal. My one concern here is exercising the options in 30 years time. If the original land owner cannot be found or has died and the family are reluctant to go to the Land Office to exercise the renewal or the land has changed hands etc. what do you do? I have not had a satisfactory answer to that apart from go to court and I am not aware of any legal precedents to help. If you control the Thai company as stated previously this issue cannot come about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SamuiRes,

This was my concern when I started to look into leasehold, beyond the original 30 years what do you have?

A Canadian friend who studied Thai business law told me Thai law is not precedent-based as in most western countries and each case is decided individually.

A BKK lawyer also told me the 30 +30 thing hasn't been around long enough to be tested so nobody really knows.

Not to mention, after 30 years the land value in certain areas may have increased substantially and there could be serious incentive to get you off the land.

Those are the main reasons why I am going the company route.

Edited December 20, 2005 by johnnyk

[Dragonman]

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is probably as big an issue as any as planning controls do not seem to exist to prevent this. Looking for an investment and holiday home, this is as good a reason as any to buy on a managed development as opposed to going it alone.

However, back on topic - it is perfectly legal to own the building as opposed to the land so the Thai company owns the land on which you pay rent, therefore the Thai company is trading and pays tax on the rent. You have leased the land in your own name which is also perfectly legal, the lease of the land is registered at the Land Office for 30 years plus two 30 year options. Your ownership of the building cannot be disputed - it is perfectly legal under Thai Law. The Thai company is trading so is also legitimate.

The alternative is to lease the land from a third party and register the lease and the options at the Land Office. Again perfectly legal. My one concern here is exercising the options in 30 years time. If the original land owner cannot be found or has died and the family are reluctant to go to the Land Office to exercise the renewal or the land has changed hands etc. what do you do? I have not had a satisfactory answer to that apart from go to court and I am not aware of any legal precedents to help. If you control the Thai company as stated previously this issue cannot come about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The question under Thai Law is "is it a shell Company", not whether it is supposedly trading as a Company in existence simply to rent a house to its Managing Director! I will leave it to people to decide for themselves how they would see it if they were that Judge

The law is pretty well established in most countries, including Thailand by case law, that an "option" is a contractual agreement and is therefore personal. If the current owner doesn't own the land in 30 years, you're pretty well stuffed

johnnyk, your Canadian friend was correct, but even Thai Judges are pretty up on Contractual Law.

As far as I am aware these agreements have been in effect for over 70 years in Thailand, and 100's of years in the countries Thailand took the legislation from.

[Morden]

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

[SamuiRes]

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that there have been a great many valid concerns stated in this thread and whilst some may feel secure in the land being in their Thai wifes name, that is really only as secure as the relationship. I would suggest that there are a significant number of failed marriages which would also result in the loss of the land as in order for a Thai wife of a foreigner to own land, the foreigner has to sign away all rights to that land. Is that really any more secure than the way I suggested earlier?

Whilst I think we are all aware that logic is not at the top of our host countries thinking, I cannot see that the Authorities would take it upon themselves to seriously attack the company structure provided they were receiving tax revenue. To do so would destroy future investment in Thailand for years.

What I suggest is more likely is that they will impose and enforce specific taxation on companies owning residential real estate which will benefit the country and why should we not pay for the privilidge of living here? After all that would be the equivalent of Council Tax in the UK and would help fund much of the sadly lacking infrastructure, particularly here on Samui.

Another point that needs making is that we have seen a number of people set up legitimate Thai companies but with the foriegn element being held offshore. This I think is particularly dangerous as it is an obvious attempt to avoid tax and something I believe the Authorities will be looking at very soon as they did in Spain.

[Morden]

I think that there have been a great many valid concerns stated in this thread and whilst some may feel secure in the land being in their Thai wifes name, that is really only as secure as the relationship. I would suggest that there are a significant number of failed marriages which would also result in the loss of the land as in order for a Thai wife of a foreigner to own land, the foreigner has to sign away all rights to that land. Is that really any more secure than the way I suggested earlier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely right regarding divorce. Should my wife and I divorce, she will have a very fair settlement in the form of a home and an income. For my part, I would have retained my home in England and could return to live there. Furthermore should I die before my wife, she would be able to continue living in her home without legal uncertainty or difficulty and also have an income. I think that's just a matter of acting responsibly and fairly. Wives aren't just for Christmas!

What? Did I here someone say that he hadn't prepared for the eventuality that he might be divorced or pre-decease his wife? Did someone say that he would be prepared to recover what he could and leave his ex wife with little or nothing in the way of a home or income? Surely no-one here would contemplate such a thing. Surely no-one here has married without making proper provision for his wife in the event of divorce or his early death.

[Krub]

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only 'risk' is if the wife dies before you and you do not have a lease contract, it will be very difficult for you to decidee if you want to stay in the house or leave. The land and house would also belong to the wife's family.

I am also aware that if the wife dies first, I might not want to live in the village surroinded by the 'maybe' hostile family.

If you have kids the village will be more inclined to be fairer on you once the wife is not there anymore

Sorry if it sounds dry but I have thought a lot of all the possible scenarios and have come to the conclusion that a 30+30 years lease covers best most cases.

it is also true that you should protect yourself and be ready to walk out of any land/property investment you make in Thaialnd and start somewhere else.

Some will argue that renting is the way to go

[unforgiven]

I am thinking of buying a small house on Koh Samui or Phuket as an investment. I have a full time job owning a business in sunny old England so would not be spending to much time there.

Questions

1. Is there a (strong) market for renting out property either long term or holiday makers?

2. What, if any, are the inflation returns on owning property, reading some threads many people think renting is better than owning?

3. How hard is it to buy when living on the other side of the planet?

4. Is it worth it?

Any comments greatly received.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If your smart you forget the idea.........definetly not worth it

[unforgiven]

I don't see much risk in a condo. It is in your name. As far as location that could be a problem. I bought mine in a large complex. It was established, well maintained and security is great. I think you would be better off to buy an upscale unit with at least 60 square metere. The shoe boxes would not be comfortable to live in nor is the resale that great. 

Tempting to buy a house or Condo but the risk is huge.

Some jacka** next door could open an all nite Karaoke, a motorcycle repair,  an auto body shop or metal recycler......

It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the last 3 posts belong to a different thread?????

This thread was about buying land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the thread is about property and condos are property, so not really off base.

Too bad Leafs still suck.

BTW, were you alive when they last drank from the cup?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm in T.O as we speak ya 67 I was 10.............I'm a hab fan

[johnnyk]

I'm in T.O as we speak ya 67 I was 10.............I'm a hab fan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Condolences to you, I'm in Victoria.

Had the great good fortune to grow up in Montreal 1950-75.

The gold standard, though the 60s Leafs were a very fine team.

My neighbourhood Junior B team had Bernie Parent in goal, won the championship one year from Verdun who had Jacques Lemaire and Guy Lapointe.

Merry Xmas.

[Dragonman]

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that there have been a great many valid concerns stated in this thread and whilst some may feel secure in the land being in their Thai wifes name, that is really only as secure as the relationship. I would suggest that there are a significant number of failed marriages which would also result in the loss of the land as in order for a Thai wife of a foreigner to own land, the foreigner has to sign away all rights to that land. Is that really any more secure than the way I suggested earlier?

Whilst I think we are all aware that logic is not at the top of our host countries thinking, I cannot see that the Authorities would take it upon themselves to seriously attack the company structure provided they were receiving tax revenue. To do so would destroy future investment in Thailand for years.

What I suggest is more likely is that they will impose and enforce specific taxation on companies owning residential real estate which will benefit the country and why should we not pay for the privilidge of living here? After all that would be the equivalent of Council Tax in the UK and would help fund much of the sadly lacking infrastructure, particularly here on Samui.

Another point that needs making is that we have seen a number of people set up legitimate Thai companies but with the foriegn element being held offshore. This I think is particularly dangerous as it is an obvious attempt to avoid tax and something I believe the Authorities will be looking at very soon as they did in Spain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, I also do not feel there will be any attack on the Company structure. The only thing that may happen is more individual investigations into property purchase. Currently the Land Department has the ability to investigate any application for land purchase, with particular concern as to the Thai shareholders, and even has the power to look at their income and tax returns. In effect this rarely happens.

[johnnyk]

I agree, I also do not feel there will be any attack on the Company structure. The only thing that may happen is more individual investigations into property purchase. Currently the Land Department has the ability to investigate any application for land purchase, with particular concern as to the Thai shareholders, and even has the power to look at their income and tax returns. In effect this rarely happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My take is that if your Thai directors are legit and seen to have the means to participate as share holders then its ok.

Beware of a lawyer who puts the downstairs noodle-seller lady and a tuk-tuk driver on as directors.

[SamuiRes]

I agree, I also do not feel there will be any attack on the Company structure. The only thing that may happen is more individual investigations into property purchase. Currently the Land Department has the ability to investigate any application for land purchase, with particular concern as to the Thai shareholders, and even has the power to look at their income and tax returns. In effect this rarely happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My take is that if your Thai directors are legit and seen to have the means to participate as share holders then its ok.

Beware of a lawyer who puts the downstairs noodle-seller lady and a tuk-tuk driver on as directors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I am aware there is no requirement to have a Thai as a Director. However, the above post does raise another issue. Shareholders are shareholders and cannot be nominees - that is illegal. Therefore, why would they invest in your company? Presumably to gain income from investment. Therefore it may be prudent to pay a dividend (does not have to be large) to the shareholders each year. Just a thought.

[Dragonman]

I agree, I also do not feel there will be any attack on the Company structure. The only thing that may happen is more individual investigations into property purchase. Currently the Land Department has the ability to investigate any application for land purchase, with particular concern as to the Thai shareholders, and even has the power to look at their income and tax returns. In effect this rarely happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My take is that if your Thai directors are legit and seen to have the means to participate as share holders then its ok.

Beware of a lawyer who puts the downstairs noodle-seller lady and a tuk-tuk driver on as directors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey johnnyk, my wife was a noodle-seller lady in Bangkok and she earned 3x as much a month as her brother the sub-editor of a large newspaper. Mind you she spends 5x as much

[EVO]

Ever thought that maybe that 'mickey mouse' comapny might as well pay its way anyway, land ownership or not??

ITs not a difficult objective and solves many problems. With the preffered share setup of companies being legal here (though rather distasteful to say the least) you can have complete control over you other shareholders, legally own the land on which you reside and have no more headaches.

Regards

[johnnyk]

Ever thought that maybe that 'mickey mouse' comapny might as well pay its way anyway, land ownership or not??

ITs not a difficult objective and solves many problems. With the preffered share setup of companies being legal here (though rather distasteful to say the least) you can have complete control over you other shareholders, legally own the land on which you reside and have no more headaches.

Regards

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are talking about tiny private minnow companies.

Why is a preferred share setup distasteful here?

It exists in company law throughout the developed world.

The problem only comes in large companies where minority shareholders use such a structure to loot the company leaving Aunt Minnie and her savings in the ditch.

[johnnyk]

Hey johnnyk, my wife was a noodle-seller lady in Bangkok and she earned 3x as much a month as her brother the sub-editor of a large newspaper. Mind you she spends 5x as much

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah but her noodles were the best, right?

[egeefay]

I too have bought land in Thailand. It is not mine and is in my wife's name. Am I worried about it? Not nearly as much as if I had set up a bogus company and had to pay taxes.

I realize I have no claim on that land. If we were to split up it wouldn't change my lifestyle so it's not a big deal. The person who originally wrote not to invest more than you can comfortably walk away from was dead on the mark.

My wife tried unsuccessfully to have my name put on her land and house papers. She is worried what I would do if she were to die. I wouldn't live there anyway without her so it doesn't matter to me.

Hello. Excuse me for jumping in here but could you inheirit the property if she were to die.

or could it have been set up so you own the house and she owns the land?

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

May I ask what would happen to the property if your wife were to die.

I've heard all sorts of things including "her family could come in and boot you out"

What have you heard?

[Gary A]

Quite frankly if something were to happen to my wife I would not live up here anyways. I have not checked on what would actually happen to the property if she were to die. I fully expect her family would get it all.

I too have bought land in Thailand. It is not mine and is in my wife's name. Am I worried about it? Not nearly as much as if I had set up a bogus company and had to pay taxes.

I realize I have no claim on that land. If we were to split up it wouldn't change my lifestyle so it's not a big deal. The person who originally wrote not to invest more than you can comfortably walk away from was dead on the mark.

My wife tried unsuccessfully to have my name put on her land and house papers. She is worried what I would do if she were to die. I wouldn't live there anyway without her so it doesn't matter to me.

Hello. Excuse me for jumping in here but could you inheirit the property if she were to die.

or could it have been set up so you own the house and she owns the land?

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

May I ask what would happen to the property if your wife were to die.

I've heard all sorts of things including "her family could come in and boot you out"

What have you heard?

[Dragonman]

Quite frankly if something were to happen to my wife I would not live up here anyways. I have not checked on what would actually happen to the property if she were to die. I fully expect her family would get it all.

I too have bought land in Thailand. It is not mine and is in my wife's name. Am I worried about it? Not nearly as much as if I had set up a bogus company and had to pay taxes.

I realize I have no claim on that land. If we were to split up it wouldn't change my lifestyle so it's not a big deal. The person who originally wrote not to invest more than you can comfortably walk away from was dead on the mark.

My wife tried unsuccessfully to have my name put on her land and house papers. She is worried what I would do if she were to die. I wouldn't live there anyway without her so it doesn't matter to me.

Hello. Excuse me for jumping in here but could you inheirit the property if she were to die.

or could it have been set up so you own the house and she owns the land?

If I'm understanding the last few posts correctly, Thai courts are not bound by precedent through case law and so what a judge decides in one case may not be followed in a similar case. I suppose that this applies only to case law that interprets statute law but it's still very significant. It presumably means also that if a law has been ignored for some years, a judge could still enforce it in a particular case even though the public had assumed it had fallen into disuse.

Oh boy, am I glad that we didn't build our house on land that we bought through a mickey mouse company. Our Thai land belongs to my wife and there's no possibility that a court or tax man will be able to take it away from her. And there's no landowner to do that either

May I ask what would happen to the property if your wife were to die.

I've heard all sorts of things including "her family could come in and boot you out"

What have you heard?

You will of course not be able to own the property, but you will have up to 12 months to sell it. In some areas this may not be possible and if the property is not sold it would be auctioned for "best price". Could be very little if you are in a mainly Thai area. Whatever, it is best to get a will, unless you are happy for family to inherit. Me, I don't care as at least they can't take my pension off me

[silk123]

From an investment point of view, I would stick my money in the stock market back home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me 2.

Me 3.

[skippybangkok]

Smarter than the Tax man ?

Well, they are pretty smart too. I think the max. time they have to call you in to discuss errors is about 5 years, so you tax statments dont get looked at for the first 4. Then, they pounce using the fine over the last few years to try to secure a hefty kick back. I work for a big local company, and started getting annonymous calls from the "tax office", but they refused to leave contact details, just saying I should meet them, it was very shady, and you did not have to be a genius to figure out what was going on. I told my secretary never to transfer such shady cals to me. Just ignored them, until they started tring more tricks in the book. Refused to speak to them in person, and sent an authorized person ( with an accounting back ground ).

Make a long story short, they threatened to block my traveling, issues a formal letter asking me to clarify it, and then I got my company to sort it out. Conclusion was the company mis-printed the offical tax forms making it look like i received more income that year. They tried to fine me 600,000 baht , and through the back door it was said it could be made to dissapear for 200,000. Glad i refused to play the game.

End results

1. I was cleared, and a formal letter clearing me. No fine

2. ( as per this thread) - If you do intend to flout the law, my assessment is there will be someone there lurking in the dark waiting for enough water to go under the bridge before they make their move.

Believe me, you dont want that pressure, so keep it legal.