Userfruct And Paying Tax To The Tessaban?

[jamescollister]

Tessaban and Land Office are not the same. The Amphur has nothing to do with land ownership and taxes. If the land is registered at the Tessaban then the title is not Chanoet but something less.

We have chanoet land and have never been asked to pay tax of any kind. We also have some land registered at a Tessaban and the annual tax is THB50 for three rai worth THB1m per rai.

Despite what one poster wrote, usufruct is well worth having for several reasons. It entitles you to occupy and care for the property during your lifetime. It's also a useful device, for those who feel they may need it, to put off would be buyers and money lenders and is perfectly legal. You can enter into a usufruct agreement with any landowner, not just a wife or girlfriend.. Now, even if you trust your wife as much as I trust mine, there may still be a problem if she predeceases you. The family and scooter boy husbands of daughters will be round the property like flies around a dustbin. Usufruct is a contract between you and the land owner, registered at the Land Office and noted on the Chanoet. Copies of the standard wording are available at land Offices and can be amended as required.

There is no tax for registering the usufruct other than the initial processing fee. What you were told about tax at Tessaban is nonsense unless there's something I have yet to encounter. Usufruct is a private contract registered at the Land Office. It does not state or imply that ownership has changed and, other than registration, has nothing to do with any government department.

I can't say whether usufruct contracts are accepted for registration at Tessaban as they are at the Land Office. If they are not, then the other option is a 30 year renewable lease. I believe that involves a small annual tax.

You, the OP, have said that the land has chanoet and is registered at Tessaban rather tnha the Land Office. You need to get that clear. The chanoet document is large format, two sided and the paper is eggshell blue.

I hope that helps.

Amphor collects land taxes, not the land department. Land Department only registers who owns the land. ownership, lessees etc.

If your wife dies you will have 12 months to sell the land or the land office will wil sell it for you.

You pay taxes on all land, many areas do not bother to collect the land taxes as they are not worth the effort for such a small fee, in may case some land works out at 20 Baht a rai.

More than one usufuruct can be put on a piece of land and it does not cover housing. It's a right to use land for mining or farming.

Think you want to have a look at the civil code, you as a foreigner have not rights at at all, you can not make amendments to the usufruct agreement.

Think things have gone from stories the urban belief. Read the civil code and show where a farang can keep, own or control land. It ain't there. Jim

This comments that a foreigner in Thailand has no rights at all is totally nonsens! We are appplying to the same law as the Thais. However, when the law is not clear and it comes to a judgement of a court you are not in favour. But the usufruct agreement is clear without room for interpretations, you have the rights of this even if you are a foreigner.

Noone will buy a land he can not use, which is the case with a land wich have a usufruct agreement, so in practice it is not possible to sell the land before the usufruct expires.

Really how would that work, usufruct is a right to work the land for pleasure and profit. So a farang would not need a work permit to work in a prohibited field.

The civil code is pretty clear, think you should read it before rehashing farang myth.

Only way for a non Thai to control land is you invest over 20 mil or a 50 year BOI lease.

You can't just pick which bits of the law you like and discount the rest.

Please explain why 1469 of the civil code doesn't apply or why a usufruct which covers immovable property, soil, rocks, trees, plants etc is some magic right to own a house. Buildings are movable for the purpose of a usufruct, there are other laws dealing with habitation. Jim

[Morden]

Tessaban and Land Office are not the same. The Amphur has nothing to do with land ownership and taxes. If the land is registered at the Tessaban then the title is not Chanoet but something less.

We have chanoet land and have never been asked to pay tax of any kind. We also have some land registered at a Tessaban and the annual tax is THB50 for three rai worth THB1m per rai.

Despite what one poster wrote, usufruct is well worth having for several reasons. It entitles you to occupy and care for the property during your lifetime. It's also a useful device, for those who feel they may need it, to put off would be buyers and money lenders and is perfectly legal. You can enter into a usufruct agreement with any landowner, not just a wife or girlfriend.. Now, even if you trust your wife as much as I trust mine, there may still be a problem if she predeceases you. The family and scooter boy husbands of daughters will be round the property like flies around a dustbin. Usufruct is a contract between you and the land owner, registered at the Land Office and noted on the Chanoet. Copies of the standard wording are available at land Offices and can be amended as required.

There is no tax for registering the usufruct other than the initial processing fee. What you were told about tax at Tessaban is nonsense unless there's something I have yet to encounter. Usufruct is a private contract registered at the Land Office. It does not state or imply that ownership has changed and, other than registration, has nothing to do with any government department.

I can't say whether usufruct contracts are accepted for registration at Tessaban as they are at the Land Office. If they are not, then the other option is a 30 year renewable lease. I believe that involves a small annual tax.

You, the OP, have said that the land has chanoet and is registered at Tessaban rather tnha the Land Office. You need to get that clear. The chanoet document is large format, two sided and the paper is eggshell blue.

I hope that helps.

Amphor collects land taxes, not the land department. Land Department only registers who owns the land. ownership, lessees etc.

If your wife dies you will have 12 months to sell the land or the land office will wil sell it for you.

You pay taxes on all land, many areas do not bother to collect the land taxes as they are not worth the effort for such a small fee, in may case some land works out at 20 Baht a rai.

More than one usufuruct can be put on a piece of land and it does not cover housing. It's a right to use land for mining or farming.

Think you want to have a look at the civil code, you as a foreigner have not rights at at all, you can not make amendments to the usufruct agreement.

Think things have gone from stories the urban belief. Read the civil code and show where a farang can keep, own or control land. It ain't there. Jim

This comments that a foreigner in Thailand has no rights at all is totally nonsens! We are appplying to the same law as the Thais. However, when the law is not clear and it comes to a judgement of a court you are not in favour. But the usufruct agreement is clear without room for interpretations, you have the rights of this even if you are a foreigner.

Noone will buy a land he can not use, which is the case with a land wich have a usufruct agreement, so in practice it is not possible to sell the land before the usufruct expires.

You're right and that's not the only nonsense.

The usufruct contract is a private agreement, enforceable in law and voluntarily lodged with the land's records. The standard wording can be changed suit the parties. The benefits bestowed are not limited to farming as has been suggested. You acquire the right to occupy, enjoy and care for the property. Anyone who wants to be pernickety about who owns the house can deal with that by keeping receipts from builders merchants, builder or previous owner.

The other misleading advice I noticed this morning is the suggestion if the land isn't sold within one year of the owner's death, the government will take it. For those who live in the real world it goes as follows:

Land needs an owner, by and large. When an owner dies, therefore, a new owner must be found. Perhaps there's a will to settle that. There will certainly be plenty of family to step in. The point for usufruct owners is that the usufruct continues. Once there's a new owner, it's a good idea to sign a new contract. I managed to keep my home when I divorced my first wife here. She had previously agreed to an usufruct. I had to confirm to the Land Office that I agreed to the transfer of ownership to a Thai friend. When I remarried, the land was transferred to my new wife and we signed a new usufruct.

Expats. who buy land and build houses without protecting themselves with either an usufruct or long lease are asking for trouble. Maybe your wife is completely trustworthy but you can't be sure about the family.

I know of two examples where smart and greedy wives refused an usufruct in one case and a lease in the other. You get agreement to do it before spending your money!

[mackes]

OK, let us take it one by one:

Really how would that work, usufruct is a right to work the land for pleasure and profit. So a farang would not need a work permit to work in a prohibited field.

The civil code is pretty clear, think you should read it before rehashing farang myth.

Only way for a non Thai to control land is you invest over 20 mil or a 50 year BOI lease.

You can't just pick which bits of the law you like and discount the rest.

I do not understand how you got work permit rules into this.

No I can not as a foreigner work on the land without permission, but I can have Thai people doing it for me and thus enjoy the "pleasure and profit"

Please explain why 1469 of the civil code doesn't apply or why a usufruct which covers immovable property, soil, rocks, trees, plants etc is some magic right to own a house. Buildings are movable for the purpose of a usufruct, there are other laws dealing with habitation. Jim

First for the people how have not read, here is section 1469:

"Section 1469. Any agreement concluded between husband and wife during marriage may be avoided by either of them at any time during marriage

or within one year from the day of dissolution of marriage; provided that the right of third persons acting in good faith are not affected thereby."

Section 1469 certainly applies, but it is hard for your wife to apply for avoidance after her decease, is it not?

However, the land office does not agree on a usufruct from your wife if your married at the time, it has to be done before marriage.

Who said I will got the right to own the house on the land? No I certainly do not got that right.

However, in most cases it is not feasible to move a house other than in theory and as I mentioned before it is more or less impossible to sell a land with no rights for the buyer to use it.

[Morden]

OK, let us take it one by one:

Really how would that work, usufruct is a right to work the land for pleasure and profit. So a farang would not need a work permit to work in a prohibited field.

The civil code is pretty clear, think you should read it before rehashing farang myth.

Only way for a non Thai to control land is you invest over 20 mil or a 50 year BOI lease.

You can't just pick which bits of the law you like and discount the rest.

I do not understand how you got work permit rules into this.

No I can not as a foreigner work on the land without permission, but I can have Thai people doing it for me and thus enjoy the "pleasure and profit"

Please explain why 1469 of the civil code doesn't apply or why a usufruct which covers immovable property, soil, rocks, trees, plants etc is some magic right to own a house. Buildings are movable for the purpose of a usufruct, there are other laws dealing with habitation. Jim

First for the people how have not read, here is section 1469:

"Section 1469. Any agreement concluded between husband and wife during marriage may be avoided by either of them at any time during marriage

or within one year from the day of dissolution of marriage; provided that the right of third persons acting in good faith are not affected thereby."

Section 1469 certainly applies, but it is hard for your wife to apply for avoidance after her decease, is it not?

However, the land office does not agree on a usufruct from your wife if your married at the time, it has to be done before marriage.

Who said I will got the right to own the house on the land? No I certainly do not got that right.

However, in most cases it is not feasible to move a house other than in theory and as I mentioned before it is more or less impossible to sell a land with no rights for the buyer to use it.

Yes, the right to work has nothing to do with usufruct.

My understanding is that foreigners can own a house, 'though not the land on which it stands. In practice, it probably doesn't matter if you don't have the right to be on the land on which the house stands.

You can sign and have registered a usufruct is you are already married. I have done it twice and the Land Office raised no comment.

It's unlikely that anyone would by a property that's subject to either usufruct or a lease. My information has always been that the usufruct stands and both parties to it have to agree to cancel it if a buyer asks for that.

What I write on this thread comes from my own experience and what my lawyer has told me. I'm not theorising or repeating bar room talk.

[jamescollister]

TITLE VII

USUFRUCT

Section 1417. An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property.

He has the right of management of the property.

The usufruct of a forest, mine or quarry entitles the usufructuary to the exploitation of the forest, mine or quarry.

Section 1418. A usufruct may be created either for a period of time or for the life of the usufructuary. If no time has been fixed, it is presumed that the usufruct is for the life of the usufructuary.

Section 1419. If property is destroyed without compensation being paid, the owner is not bound to restore it; but, if he does so to any extent, the usufruct revives to that extent.

If any compensation is paid, the owner or the usufructuary must restore the property so far as it is impossible to do so, having regard to the amount of the compensation received, and the usufruct revives to that extent; but, if restoration is impossible, the usufruct come to an end and the compensation must be divided between the owner and the usufructuary in proportion to the damages suffered by them respectively.

The same rules apply mutatis mutandis in case of expropriation as well as in case of partial destruction of the property or of partial impossibility to restore the property.

Section 1420. When usufruct comes to an end, the usufructuary must return the property to the owner.

The usufructuary is liable for the destruction or depreciation in value of the property, unless he proves that the damage was not caused by his fault.

He must replace anything which he has wrongfully consumed.

He is not bound to give compensation for depreciation in value caused by reasonable use.

Section 1421. The usufructuary must, in the exercise of his rights, take as must care of the property as a person of ordinary prudence would take of his own property.

Section 1422. Unless otherwise provided in the act creating the usufruct, the usufructuary may transfer the exercise of his right to the third person. In such case the owner of the property may sue the transferee direct.

Section 1423. The owner may object to any unlawful or unreasonable use of the property.

If the owner proves that his rights are in peril, he may demand security from the usufructuary, except in the case of donor who has reserved to himself the usufruct of the property given.

If the usufructuary fails to give security within a reasonable time fixed for the purpose, or if, in spite of the owner's objection he continues to make use of the property unlawfully or unreasonably, the Court may appoint a Receiver to manage the property in his stead. Upon security being given the Court may release the Receiver so appointed.

Section 1424. The usufructuary is bound to keep the substance of the property unaltered, and is responsible for ordinary maintenance and pretty repairs.

If important repairs or measures are necessary for the preservation of the property, the usufructuary must forthwith inform the owner thereof and permit them to be carried out. In case of default by the owner, the usufructuary may have the work carried out at the owner's expense.

Section 1425. All extraordinary expense must be borne by the owner, but in order to meet these or expenses coming under the foregoing section he may realize part of the property unless the usufructuary is willing to advance the necessary funds without charging interest.

Section 1426. The usufructuary shall, for the duration of the usufruct, bear expenses for the management of the property, pay taxes and duties, and be responsible for interests payable on debts charged upon it.

Section 1427. If required by the owner, the usufructuary is bound to ensure the property against loss for the benefit of the owner; and if the property is already insures he is bound to renew such insurance when due He must pay the premiums of the insurance for the duration of his usufruct.

Section 1428. No action by the owner against the usufructuary or his transferee in connection with the usufruct or vice versa may be entered later than one year after the usufruct comes to an end. But in an action by the owner who could not have known of the end of the usufruct, the prescription of one year shall run from the time when he knew or ought to have known of it.

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

[Morden]

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

[mackes]

TITLE VII

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

Sorry, I do not understand the comment

[jamescollister]

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

You can change the law it's in statue.

What I think some fail to see, it's a crime to try and circumvent Thai land laws.

Just as with the nominee companies, all the rage years ago. The Government has come out and said, anyone caught will have their land, house confiscated and they will be deported.

Of course it give you the right to work, usufructs are about using land.

4 th line down, exploit the land, who would get a usufruct for a mine if they could not mine it.

As said you have a usufruct or you don't, there are no extra clauses that cover farangs.

Mackes, as farang you are prohibited from engaging in what usufructs cover, you can't hire Thais to work for you, or you are running a business.

If I can find they law that covers trying to circumvent Thai land law, I will post it. Jim

[reflectionx]

TITLE VII

USUFRUCT

Section 1417. An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property.

He has the right of management of the property.

The usufruct of a forest, mine or quarry entitles the usufructuary to the exploitation of the forest, mine or quarry.

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

I am by no means a legal expert, but unless this section is not translated properly from Thai, it is pretty clear to me: IN THE CASE there are some natural resources on the land, you are allowed to exploit them and make profit. I don't see anything in the writing stating that the land MUST be used for commercial purposes ONLY.

Is there a section that explicitly states (or at least implies) that you must use the land for business only or that you are not allowed to build a house and live in it?

[Morden]

TITLE VII

USUFRUCT

Section 1417. An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property.

He has the right of management of the property.

The usufruct of a forest, mine or quarry entitles the usufructuary to the exploitation of the forest, mine or quarry.

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

I am by no means a legal expert, but unless this section is not translated properly from Thai, it is pretty clear to me: IN THE CASE there are some natural resources on the land, you are allowed to exploit them and make profit. I don't see anything in the writing stating that the land MUST be used for commercial purposes ONLY.

Is there a section that explicitly states (or at least implies) that you must use the land for business only or that you are not allowed to build a house and live in it?

There's an error in the translation. A negative is there instead of a positive.

No, you don't have to use the land for business. I, and probably most others, have usufruct to protect our right to live in the home on the land. I paid for some land that was put in the name of my first wife and built a house. I didn't know about usufruct at the time. When the marriage was going tits up, I spoke to my lawyer who recommended and drafted an usufruct agreement. The silly cow agreed to it and the lawyer came with us to the Land Office to register it. Lucky I did that before she turned really nasty. Now, my second wife owns the land and has signed a new usufruct with me. There is no business on the land.

[jamescollister]

TITLE VII

USUFRUCT

Section 1417. An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property.

He has the right of management of the property.

The usufruct of a forest, mine or quarry entitles the usufructuary to the exploitation of the forest, mine or quarry.

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

I am by no means a legal expert, but unless this section is not translated properly from Thai, it is pretty clear to me: IN THE CASE there are some natural resources on the land, you are allowed to exploit them and make profit. I don't see anything in the writing stating that the land MUST be used for commercial purposes ONLY.

Is there a section that explicitly states (or at least implies) that you must use the land for business only or that you are not allowed to build a house and live in it?

No it doesn't say you have to use it for business, but it gives you the right to use it to make money. You can farm it grow fruit trees etc You as a foreigner have no such right.

Usufruct are for business and any activity on the land would be judged as work, mowing grass or growing flowers.

As to houses there are rights of habitation in the civil code, but they are different from usufructs.

If the Government had wanted people to build homes and live on usufruct land they would have put it in the civil code, they did not.

Rights of habitation are in a different section. Jim

[uptheos]

Expats. who buy land and build houses without protecting themselves with either an usufruct or long lease are asking for trouble. Maybe your wife is completely trustworthy but you can't be sure about the family.

If you have a family then there's really no need, as if anything happens to the wife the house/land will I presume, go to the children, who are not going to throw you out.

If there's no children then I agree that when it comes to money trust often goes out of the window. However, having usufruct doesn't mean that 'family' can't make your life miserable and you might be better off just moving out anyway. If you move out with the intention of just annoying them i.e. it's difficult to sell with your name on the land papers, then all they have to say is that you are not abiding by the terms of the usufruct and maintaining the property in good order.

[jamescollister]

HABITATION (arsai)

Section 1402. A person who has been granted a right of habitation (arsai) in a building is entitled to occupy such building as a dwelling place without paying rent.

Section 1403. A right of habitation may be created either for a period of time or for the life of the grantee.

If no time has been fixed, such right may be terminated at any time by giving reasonable notice to the grantee.

If it is granted for a period of time, the period may not exceed thirty years; if a longer period is stipulated, it shall be reduced to thirty years. The grant may be renewed for a period not exceeding thirty years from the time of renewal.

Section 1404. The right of habitation is not transferable even by way of inheritance.

Section 1405. Unless the right of habitation is expressly limited to be for the benefit of the grantee personally, the members of his family and his household may dwell with him.

Section 1406. Unless expressly forbidden by the grantor, the grantee may take such natural fruits or products of the land as are necessary for the needs of his household.

Section 1407. The grantor is not bound to maintain the property in a good state of repair.

The grantee cannot claim reimbursement of expenses made by him for improvements to the property.

Section 1408. When the right of habitation comes to an end the grantee must return the property to the grantor.

Section <a name="1409">1409. The provisions of this Code concerning Duties and Liabilities of the Hirer, as specified in Sections 552, 555, 558, 562 and 563 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Why would that be there if the usufruct covered it. Jim

Edited February 3, 2013 by jamescollister

[cardholder]

TITLE VII

USUFRUCT

Section 1417. An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property.

He has the right of management of the property.

The usufruct of a forest, mine or quarry entitles the usufructuary to the exploitation of the forest, mine or quarry.

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

I am by no means a legal expert, but unless this section is not translated properly from Thai, it is pretty clear to me: IN THE CASE there are some natural resources on the land, you are allowed to exploit them and make profit. I don't see anything in the writing stating that the land MUST be used for commercial purposes ONLY.

Is there a section that explicitly states (or at least implies) that you must use the land for business only or that you are not allowed to build a house and live in it?

There's an error in the translation. A negative is there instead of a positive.

No, you don't have to use the land for business. I, and probably most others, have usufruct to protect our right to live in the home on the land. I paid for some land that was put in the name of my first wife and built a house. I didn't know about usufruct at the time. When the marriage was going tits up, I spoke to my lawyer who recommended and drafted an usufruct agreement. The silly cow agreed to it and the lawyer came with us to the Land Office to register it. Lucky I did that before she turned really nasty. Now, my second wife owns the land and has signed a new usufruct with me. There is no business on the land.

Jim, on this occasion, I believe you are wrong. A usufruct WILL stand up in court.

The above is a good working example of a usufruct and I would rather have one than not have one.

A usufruct is nothing about ownership it is about enjoying the 'fruits of the land' and that includes buildings/houses etc. There was also a red-herring about selling in one year of a wife pre-deceasing you - that only applies where a property has been bequeathed by a Thai wife to her Farang spouse.

Remember also that matronial rules come into play - a Farang will be entitled to 50% of post-marriage assets (sin somros).

You may well finish up with no more than the toilet seat in practice but it is useful to know where you stand legally. Local police WILL enforce the rule of law (if they are aware of it!) in favour of a Farang - I have seen this happen with both a lease and a usufruct.

Edited February 3, 2013 by cardholder

[jamescollister]

Cardholder, we can agree to disagree.

I actually like these threads as they get me reading laws.

On another note, people signing a declaration that the money is a gift and you make no claim on the land. Then go on to make a claim for usufruct.

Thai criminal code.

Section 343 If the offense under Section 341 be committed by the assertion of a falsehood to the public or by the concealment of the facts which should be revealed to the public, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

Might make some think twice. Jim

[LennyW]

Cardholder, we can agree to disagree.

I actually like these threads as they get me reading laws.

On another note, people signing a declaration that the money is a gift and you make no claim on the land. Then go on to make a claim for usufruct.

Thai criminal code.

Section 343 If the offense under Section 341 be committed by the assertion of a falsehood to the public or by the concealment of the facts which should be revealed to the public, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

Might make some think twice. Jim

Not sure what you are trying to say there Jim, you can sign that the money was a gift and you have no claim on the land - and that is that.

Then applying an Usufruct is purely to allow you continued use of the land - you are not actually making any "claim of ownership" on it, the owner remains the same.

[jamescollister]

Cardholder, we can agree to disagree.

I actually like these threads as they get me reading laws.

On another note, people signing a declaration that the money is a gift and you make no claim on the land. Then go on to make a claim for usufruct.

Thai criminal code.

Section 343 If the offense under Section 341 be committed by the assertion of a falsehood to the public or by the concealment of the facts which should be revealed to the public, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

Might make some think twice. Jim

Not sure what you are trying to say there Jim, you can sign that the money was a gift and you have no claim on the land - and that is that.

Then applying an Usufruct is purely to allow you continued use of the land - you are not actually making any "claim of ownership" on it, the owner remains the same.

You are claiming the right to use immovable property of the land, that is a claim on the on the land. Jim

[harrry]

A right of habitation does not entitle a person to the produce or spoils of the land except as specified.

A userfruct is more general than a right of habitation but includes such rights.

A userfruct is not binding against the spouse unless it also is in favour of a third party.

A usersfruct is for a specific period or for life.

Ownership of the land is at no time affected.

[cardholder]

I will stand corrected, but I think the declarations referred to above are no longer applicable.

[LennyW]

Cardholder, we can agree to disagree.

I actually like these threads as they get me reading laws.

On another note, people signing a declaration that the money is a gift and you make no claim on the land. Then go on to make a claim for usufruct.

Thai criminal code.

Section 343 If the offense under Section 341 be committed by the assertion of a falsehood to the public or by the concealment of the facts which should be revealed to the public, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

Might make some think twice. Jim

Not sure what you are trying to say there Jim, you can sign that the money was a gift and you have no claim on the land - and that is that.

Then applying an Usufruct is purely to allow you continued use of the land - you are not actually making any "claim of ownership" on it, the owner remains the same.

You are claiming the right to use immovable property of the land, that is a claim on the on the land. Jim

Yes, i agree you are claiming the right to use, but you are not claiming ownership - two different things.

[mackes]

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

Mackes, as farang you are prohibited from engaging in what usufructs cover, you can't hire Thais to work for you, or you are running a business.

I believe you mix things up.

As a foreigner I am prohibited to work, not prohibited to act as an owner of property and thus take care of the land. I do not need a company for that purpose, I can hire a handyman or whatever as a privat to solve the caretaking.

If that would not be allowed foreigner should not have the right to sign usufruct agreements as it would be a terms of contradiction.

I am not trying to circumvent the Thai laws, I just use the oppurtunity that the Thai laws offer foreigners that are willing to invest in caretaking of land to the benefits of both parts.

I think you seriously misunderstanding the intent of the usufruct.

[diddums]

I think so also.

I hire someone to cut the grass...but don't need a WP for that.

Gaining a right to use the land, but not own it etc.

[jamescollister]

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

Mackes, as farang you are prohibited from engaging in what usufructs cover, you can't hire Thais to work for you, or you are running a business.

I believe you mix things up.

As a foreigner I am prohibited to work, not prohibited to act as an owner of property and thus take care of the land. I do not need a company for that purpose, I can hire a handyman or whatever as a privat to solve the caretaking.

If that would not be allowed foreigner should not have the right to sign usufruct agreements as it would be a terms of contradiction.

I am not trying to circumvent the Thai laws, I just use the oppurtunity that the Thai laws offer foreigners that are willing to invest in caretaking of land to the benefits of both parts.

I think you seriously misunderstanding the intent of the usufruct.

So you can buy a bar, hotel and just hire people to work for you and you don't need a W/P. Think again. Jim

[jamescollister]

I think so also.

I hire someone to cut the grass...but don't need a WP for that.

Gaining a right to use the land, but not own it etc.

As aid above go buy a business, hire workers in that business to work for you and tell me how you don't need a W/p. Jim

[diddums]

How is hiring someone to care for your vegetable garden and grow your rice for you to eat yourself....a business ?

Smae smae cutting the grass...no income earned from the grass.

No income earned from the vegetables or fruit trees or chickens that are reared and used to feed your family.

I read that as 'the enjoyment of the land, right to use' etc.

Most guys do not build a bar or hotel on their land they put a usufruct on, it is for peaceful enjoyment, security etc....not business usually.

[jamescollister]

How is hiring someone to care for your vegetable garden and grow your rice for you to eat yourself....a business ?

Smae smae cutting the grass...no income earned from the grass.

No income earned from the vegetables or fruit trees or chickens that are reared and used to feed your family.

I read that as 'the enjoyment of the land, right to use' etc.

Most guys do not build a bar or hotel on their land they put a usufruct on, it is for peaceful enjoyment, security etc....not business usually.

Usufructs are for business not rights of habitation. Read the civil code. Jim

[mackes]

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

Mackes, as farang you are prohibited from engaging in what usufructs cover, you can't hire Thais to work for you, or you are running a business.

I believe you mix things up.

As a foreigner I am prohibited to work, not prohibited to act as an owner of property and thus take care of the land. I do not need a company for that purpose, I can hire a handyman or whatever as a privat to solve the caretaking.

If that would not be allowed foreigner should not have the right to sign usufruct agreements as it would be a terms of contradiction.

I am not trying to circumvent the Thai laws, I just use the oppurtunity that the Thai laws offer foreigners that are willing to invest in caretaking of land to the benefits of both parts.

I think you seriously misunderstanding the intent of the usufruct.

So you can buy a bar, hotel and just hire people to work for you and you don't need a W/P. Think again. Jim

OK, let us look on what Thai law say about foreigner and working in Thailand:

A work permit is required for every foreigner who engages in work by “exerting energy or using knowledge whether or not in consideration of wages or other benefits”

That tell us that work is defined as "exerting energy" or "using knowledge" and you are not allowed to work regardless if you are paid or not.

I can not run a Bar or a Hotel because that demands someone in charge with the "knowledge" and that can not be me

and if I hire staff and managing director we are running a business and I am not allowed to own the majority of that.

But cutting my grass or have someone cleaning my window is hardly a business, that is an everyday task in each home.

And as I am not allowed to do it myself if we read the law I need to pay someone to do it.

I believe that this is also the intent of the work permit demand, foreigners should not take work from Thai citizens but shall generate work.

It seems to me that you are fixed in that usufruct is for business, why is it in that case not mentioned anywhere? The title say:

"An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property."

It state the possession, the use and the enjoyment of the property. The only thing that I can connect to business is the word "use", hardly possession or enjoyment.

I possess the land and I enjoy it, But I do not own it.

Business is your interpretation of the word use.

Edited February 3, 2013 by mackes

[Trujillo]

The Thai statute as translated:

"An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property."

jamescollister said:

One thing to remember is a usufruct only covers immovable property, soil, dirt, trees and plants, etc. For the purposes of a usufruct houses and buildings are movable. Land owner can move them to the side of the road, no court order needed.

You mistake immovable property for earth itself.

In English common law, real property, real estate, realty, or immovable property is any subset of land that has been legally defined and the improvements to it made by human efforts: any buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. -- from http://en.wikipedia....i/Real_property

Immovable property is property that has a fixed location and cannot be moved or transferred elsewhere. It can be built upon or affixed to the ground; the term legally also refers to land or the premises upon which a home or building stands. Immovable property has a fixed address, determined by the jurisdiction where it is located. By definition, immovable property is permanent, and it may include buildings, improvements and natural features. -- from http://homeguides.sf...perty-1575.html

Immovable property is an immovable object, an item of property that cannot be moved without destroying or altering it - property that is fixed to the Earth, such as land or a house... -- from http://en.wikipedia....ovable_property

I could go on and on.... You will have to swallow your pride and accept you are completely wrong in this.

I am sure that Thai law in this regard is of the same thinking as in the West (as the laws in Thailand are generally reflective of those from the West).

Immovable property IS buildings. It is not a strange, made-up for Thailand term. Your entire construct is based on a fallacy.

[Morden]

This thread is getting bogged down in fact, fiction and point scoring.

The OP asked about taxes on chanoet land. The answer is that, in my experience, there is no annual tax on, at least, residential property and there is no enhanced tax because a farang has an usufruct agreement with the owner. If anyone thinks that's incorrect, please offer details of your own different experience.

[jamescollister]

You can go on for ever, but in this case, Thai civil code comes from the French civil code.

For the purpose of a usufruct in Thailand or France, houses, buildings are not immovable property.

Immovable property is the land and things of the land. House didn't grow there.

Mackes

Did you read the civil code, it clearly gives you the right to mine, quarry, farm and use the land for profit. That right means you are in business whether you do business or not. Just because you have no customers in your bar doesn't mean you are out of business.

Everyone keeps saying it doesn't say this or that, but no one has posted where it says you can build a house and live happily ever after.

As to the poster who said you are not claiming ownership on the land. Think you will find the document you sign says make no claim to the land. A usufruct is clearly a claim on the land, as it gives you the right to mine, farm etc.

I will give up on this for now, off for the weekend and unless someone can post some real facts like a real court case involving a farang [this law has been here a long time] and I have never heard of one. That alone you make you think, plenty of Thai cases.

If a usufruct was for real I would have one in 5 minutes, we [wife] make or living off the land, rubber and have a small factory set up by the SME department [ National Government ] and a usufruct was a definite no, no. Not a maybe or possible, just no.

Jim