From the Guardian - U.K. :

"BVI companies have helped British buyers snap up luxury villas in Thailand – not for tax avoidance, they say, but to avoid Thai curbs on foreign owners"

http://www.guardian....hai-villas-boom

May prompt some reaction from Thai authorities?

Patrick

Edited November 28, 201213 yr by p_brownstone

The article explains that the "ownership" is merely a lease, and so not anything that I would call ownership.

A 30-year lease by any other name is still only a 30-year lease, and to me it still smells like a bad investment. A 99- or 999-year lease would be another matter entirely.

"I retired from running a greeting card shop. I met a lady here. The lawyers advised me to have a BVI company because otherwise, they said, when you sell, the Thais take a lot of tax off you."

How can the BVI company sell any Thai villa if it can not own it in the first place?

How can the BVI company sell any Thai villa if it can not own it in the first place?

Because it's a lease, as I mentioned. The article is very clear.

How can the BVI company sell any Thai villa if it can not own it in the first place?

Because it's a lease, as I mentioned. The article is very clear.

the article is nothing but pure refinded rubbish.

Britons commonly bought them through anonymous British Virgin Islands (BVI) offshore companies.

neither foreigners nor offshore companies can buy any landed property in Thailand. that can only be accomplished by a Thai company with majority Thai shareholders. period!

How can the BVI company sell any Thai villa if it can not own it in the first place?

Because it's a lease, as I mentioned. The article is very clear.

the article is nothing but pure refinded rubbish.

True, but it is clear rubbish in that it does talk exclusively about lease purchases.

I suppose on properties that are being sold for umpteen million there may be some paper advantage to be had from shielding the lease payment from inheritance tax or divorce settlements, but I have my doubts about the leases actually being worth anything like that amount in the first place. It sounds to me suspiciously like lawyers and agents making some fast commission from buyers with more money than sense.

True, but it is clear rubbish in that it does talk exclusively about lease purchases.

I suppose on properties that are being sold for umpteen million there may be some paper advantage to be had from shielding the lease payment from inheritance tax or divorce settlements, but I have my doubts about the leases actually being worth anything like that amount in the first place. It sounds to me suspiciously like lawyers and agents making some fast commission from buyers with more money than sense.

shielding the lease payment from the taxman must be real reason