House in a company name with Thai nominees

[jpinx]

Whatever fancy footwork you use to dance around the issue, just remember that circumventing the law is also illegal here afaict.

can you please elaborate and refer us to actual litigation?

No need for references other than the numerous instances of a farangs well planned and supposedly "legal" schemes being unravelled in quick time by a pissed off spouse or whatever. Being pedantic when you are only a visitor is a sure way to invite disaster since nothing will please some thais more than to take a farang down a peg or 2.

Edited to add ...

I wish the OP all the very best and I am absolutely sure his heart is in the right place, but I still believe in the old maxim of never investing more than you are prepared to lose -- and that does not only apply to the Thai property market.

Edited August 18, 2013 by jpinx

[manarak]

... being unravelled in quick time by a pissed off spouse or whatever...

certainly the best ward against that is to put everything in the wife's name!

[Naam]

OK, so to sum it up, if I do not plan selling the house in the future (which I do not, even though still not a big issue), it should be pretty safe and easy if bought in a company name.

It's much easier to sell it in company name.

not easy if the buyer is a Thai citizen except if the price is "right" and warrants the cost of dissolving the company and getting rid of any liabilities.

if the company is well-kept, such costs are negligible and there shouldn't be any liabilities.

Anyway, nothing prevents the company from selling the land to the new owner instead of selling the whole company.

so by going the company route, one has both options available.

the company selling the land would trigger definitely a tax liability because the land offices use their own assessment as far as land values are concerned. depending on the years the land was held taxes due could be a real pain in the butt.

when a company and its assets are sold the land office does not get involved. that also applies if and when the company is dissolved. only after closing down the company the land office joins the party when the new owner transfers the chanote in his name.

[jbrain]

when a company and its assets are sold the land office does not get involved. that also applies if and when the company is dissolved. only after closing down the company the land office joins the party when the new owner transfers the chanote in his name.

The company can't get closed before the land has been transferred to a new owner. You can't close down a company that has assets.

[Naam]

Whatever fancy footwork you use to dance around the issue, just remember that circumventing the law is also illegal here afaict.

sorry, but your diction lacks logic. there's nothing illegal "circumventing the law" because circumventing does not necessarily equal "breaking the law."

the case of the OP who is planning to use wife and children (who are Thai citizens) as majority shareholders and based on his intention to officially gift the required funds to his family as well as deferring irrevocably his rights to these funds is well within the legal framework of Thai law.

edited for addendum:

needless to say that the expressions "fancy footwork" and/or "dancing around the issue" do not apply!

Edited August 18, 2013 by Naam

[jpinx]

.......

It's much easier to sell it in company name.

not easy if the buyer is a Thai citizen except if the price is "right" and warrants the cost of dissolving the company and getting rid of any liabilities.

if the company is well-kept, such costs are negligible and there shouldn't be any liabilities.

Anyway, nothing prevents the company from selling the land to the new owner instead of selling the whole company.

so by going the company route, one has both options available.

the company selling the land would trigger definitely a tax liability because the land offices use their own assessment as far as land values are concerned. depending on the years the land was held taxes due could be a real pain in the butt.

when a company and its assets are sold the land office does not get involved. that also applies if and when the company is dissolved. only after closing down the company the land office joins the party when the new owner transfers the chanote in his name.

As a general rule any sale of any assets by a company can be challenged on multiple grounds - not least valuations as mentioned here. I am not familiar with thai corporate law but given the complexities it would be a brave farang that invested into a situation like that without realising that someone will always be able to whip the carpet out from under his feet.

Why create a complex situation which is fraught with potential loopholes - even if you have the best of intentions ? The simplest solution is often the best in the long run.

[jpinx]

Whatever fancy footwork you use to dance around the issue, just remember that circumventing the law is also illegal here afaict.

sorry, but your diction lacks logic. there's nothing illegal "circumventing the law" because circumventing does not necessarily equal "breaking the law."

the case of the OP who is planning to use wife and children (who are Thai citizens) as majority shareholders and based on his intention to officially gift the required funds to his family as well as deferring irrevocably his rights to these funds is well within the legal framework of Thai law.

edited for addendum:

needless to say that the expressions "fancy footwork" and/or "dancing around the issue" do not apply!

I don't disagree with the intentions, but the experiences of many farang in Thailand indicate that other outcomes are frequent.

P.S. There was a comment about the illegality of "circumvention" in relation to an immigration or work permit issue in a thread here a little while ago.

Edited August 18, 2013 by jpinx

[Naam]

when a company and its assets are sold the land office does not get involved. that also applies if and when the company is dissolved. only after closing down the company the land office joins the party when the new owner transfers the chanote in his name.

The company can't get closed before the land has been transferred to a new owner. You can't close down a company that has assets.

that is irrelevant because both is done simultaneously by the new owner after the company was sold without any land office involvement. in other words, the land office does not influence the value at which a company and its assets are sold.

of course it goes without saying that the selling price of a company cannot be a fraction of its nominal capital. should somebody be stupid enough to give that a try then bells will ring and red flags will show.

[Naam]

Whatever fancy footwork you use to dance around the issue, just remember that circumventing the law is also illegal here afaict.

sorry, but your diction lacks logic. there's nothing illegal "circumventing the law" because circumventing does not necessarily equal "breaking the law."

the case of the OP who is planning to use wife and children (who are Thai citizens) as majority shareholders and based on his intention to officially gift the required funds to his family as well as deferring irrevocably his rights to these funds is well within the legal framework of Thai law.

edited for addendum:

needless to say that the expressions "fancy footwork" and/or "dancing around the issue" do not apply!

I don't disagree with the intentions, but the experiences of many farang in Thailand indicate that other outcomes are frequent.

P.S. There was a comment about the illegality of "circumvention" in relation to an immigration or work permit issue in a thread here a little while ago.

we are discussing here the OP's case, which is quite specific and clear cut, and not the various frequent experiences of many Farangs in Thailand based on hearsay.

[jbrain]

when a company and its assets are sold the land office does not get involved. that also applies if and when the company is dissolved. only after closing down the company the land office joins the party when the new owner transfers the chanote in his name.

The company can't get closed before the land has been transferred to a new owner. You can't close down a company that has assets.

that is irrelevant because both is done simultaneously by the new owner after the company was sold without any land office involvement. in other words, the land office does not influence the value at which a company and its assets are sold.

of course it goes without saying that the selling price of a company cannot be a fraction of its nominal capital. should somebody be stupid enough to give that a try then bells will ring and red flags will show.

I don't get your point. Before you can close down a company , the company has to sell it's assets and the landoffice get's involved at that point, and the company has to pay taxes at that point, being it either by the orignal founder or the new owner of the company.

But the landoffice always get's involved before a company can be dissolved.

[jpinx]

Whatever fancy footwork you use to dance around the issue, just remember that circumventing the law is also illegal here afaict.

sorry, but your diction lacks logic. there's nothing illegal "circumventing the law" because circumventing does not necessarily equal "breaking the law."

the case of the OP who is planning to use wife and children (who are Thai citizens) as majority shareholders and based on his intention to officially gift the required funds to his family as well as deferring irrevocably his rights to these funds is well within the legal framework of Thai law.

edited for addendum:

needless to say that the expressions "fancy footwork" and/or "dancing around the issue" do not apply!

I don't disagree with the intentions, but the experiences of many farang in Thailand indicate that other outcomes are frequent.

P.S. There was a comment about the illegality of "circumvention" in relation to an immigration or work permit issue in a thread here a little while ago.

we are discussing here the OP's case, which is quite specific and clear cut, and not the various frequent experiences of many Farangs in Thailand based on hearsay.

Things that are "specific and clear cut" today have a nasty habit of morphing into something else over time, usually because there are humans involved and their perceptions and feelings might change. We can not plan the future by casting it in concrete, and whilst I do genuinely wish the OP all the best in his family life, it would be remiss to not point out that things do not always turn out as we expect - and that is not a specific reference to Thailand, but a general comment on the human condition.

I bow out now and leave the stage to you Naam. Your knowledge of the nuts and bolts of financial matters appears to be good, but you forget that it's humans wielding the spanners

[Naam]

when a company and its assets are sold the land office does not get involved. that also applies if and when the company is dissolved. only after closing down the company the land office joins the party when the new owner transfers the chanote in his name.

The company can't get closed before the land has been transferred to a new owner. You can't close down a company that has assets.

that is irrelevant because both is done simultaneously by the new owner after the company was sold without any land office involvement. in other words, the land office does not influence the value at which a company and its assets are sold.

of course it goes without saying that the selling price of a company cannot be a fraction of its nominal capital. should somebody be stupid enough to give that a try then bells will ring and red flags will show.

I don't get your point. Before you can close down a company , the company has to sell it's assets and the landoffice get's involved at that point, and the company has to pay taxes at that point, being it either by the orignal founder or the new owner of the company.

But the landoffice always get's involved before a company can be dissolved.

you don't get my point because you don't seem to read what i wrote. here we go again:

-the company is sold, the land office is not involved,

-after the company is sold (we were discussing that a Thai citizen buys the company) the sole Thai owner closes down the company and has the land and (if exists) the home transferred in his name. he can't sell something to himself what he already owns.

i am talking about a specific case and its procedure in autumn last year.

[Naam]

I bow out now and leave the stage to you Naam. Your knowledge of the nuts and bolts of financial matters appears to be good, but you forget that it's humans wielding the spanners

basically i agree with your statement that "humans wield the spanners". but let's also agree that we all wish the OP all the best for his and his family's future.

[jbrain]

The company can't get closed before the land has been transferred to a new owner. You can't close down a company that has assets.

that is irrelevant because both is done simultaneously by the new owner after the company was sold without any land office involvement. in other words, the land office does not influence the value at which a company and its assets are sold.

of course it goes without saying that the selling price of a company cannot be a fraction of its nominal capital. should somebody be stupid enough to give that a try then bells will ring and red flags will show.

I don't get your point. Before you can close down a company , the company has to sell it's assets and the landoffice get's involved at that point, and the company has to pay taxes at that point, being it either by the orignal founder or the new owner of the company.

But the landoffice always get's involved before a company can be dissolved.

you don't get my point because you don't seem to read what i wrote. here we go again:

-the company is sold, the land office is not involved,

-after the company is sold (we were discussing that a Thai citizen buys the company) the sole Thai owner closes down the company and has the land and (if exists) the home transferred in his name. he can't sell something to himself what he already owns.

i am talking about a specific case and its procedure in autumn last year.

Every house of a foreigner that is owned by a company is a company Ltd with 3 or previously 7 shareholders.

A sole Thai person can not own a Thai company Ltd. A company Ltd in Thailand always has to have at least 3 shareholders, being it a foreigner and two Thais or three Thais.

If a Thai citizen buys a company that owns land from a Foreigner, the land still belongs to the company and not to the Thai person who bought the company.

So when the Thai owner wants to close down the company, the company first has to sell the assets to the director or someone else.

Edited August 18, 2013 by jbrain

[CRUNCHER]

One tip I was given a long time ago is for the foreigner who has land and/or a house tied up with a company (or Thai wife) is to take out a 30 year lease, properly registered with the Lands Office. This makes it harder to steal (there will not be many buyers for a house with a long lease) and if anything does go wrong the foreigner has the use of the land and house for 30 years or whatever is left of the lease.

[johnnybgood]

As a general rule any sale of any assets by a company can be challenged on multiple grounds - not least valuations as mentioned here. I am not familiar with thai corporate law but given the complexities it would be a brave farang that invested into a situation like that without realising that someone will always be able to whip the carpet out from under his feet.

Why create a complex situation which is fraught with potential loopholes - even if you have the best of intentions ? The simplest solution is often the best in the long run.

Guys......

My head is spinning reading this, lawyers, courts, accountants, legal dis........ and legal dat..........

Who the <deleted>$k wants to invite [voluntarily] these leaches into your life?

Why not just................

Keep it small, keep it simple & keep your assets elsewhere where you can at least read the rules.

Whatever happened to the easy retirement ?

Apologies to the players that have lots money to show-off invest here in Thailand.

kiss

[Naam]

Why not just................

Keep it small, keep it simple & keep your assets elsewhere where you can at least read the rules.

and live under a bridge or in a tent genius?

[johnnybgood]

^

Well........... 'My' Thai lawyer [who is different] tells me I can rent the tent - no key money required

..................However as foreigner I am allowed to 'own' only one bridge.

[thaicbr]

Check out the Bkk post today.. an article about nominees. How it's a terrible crime and it will be stamped out with new laws.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[jpinx]

Why not just................

Keep it small, keep it simple & keep your assets elsewhere where you can at least read the rules.

and live under a bridge or in a tent genius?

Naam -- just to reinforce my comment about the uncertainty of the future.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662028-support-sought-for-bill-to-curb-foreign-land-grabbers-throughout-thailand/

This time it might not get done, but there is clearly a movement in that direction amongst a fair number of the politicos

[Naam]

Why not just................

Keep it small, keep it simple & keep your assets elsewhere where you can at least read the rules.

and live under a bridge or in a tent genius?

Naam -- just to reinforce my comment about the uncertainty of the future.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662028-support-sought-for-bill-to-curb-foreign-land-grabbers-throughout-thailand/

This time it might not get done, but there is clearly a movement in that direction amongst a fair number of the politicos

i agree that is was always difficult to forecast the future because of its uncertainties

but one should also use some logic when considering what might happen. expropriating (according to KPMG published in 2011) 89,000 properties held by companies and kick out those criminal Farangs? take a wild guess how much these Farangs have spent, are spending and will be spending and how much employment they provide.

[jpinx]

Counting eggs instead of chickens is a dodgy way to plan the future. There have been many cases of selectively implemented legislation to suit the political needs of the day.

Going back to the OP's specific situation - he has obviously thought about this and come up with a plan that only needs to be tweaked to suit the various existing rules. It would be a crying shame if some future far left government decided to go for a short term gain by dispossessing all those foreigners of their property. Something of a doomsday scenario, I agree, but consider what will happen when the only person who really holds this country together is not around to do just that.

[Naam]

Thailand is not an isolated country. there's ASEAN, WTO and a bunch of other memberships. how many different nationalities would be involved if there was an "action"?

[jpinx]

Thailand is not an isolated country. there's ASEAN, WTO and a bunch of other memberships. how many different nationalities would be involved if there was an "action"?

Peru is a member of the whatever-it's-called group of South American countries, but gringos are not allowed to own any form of property there, and they WILL jump on any company ownerships too (been there & got the tee-shirt). Thailand is not known to play well with others, so I'd not rely on ASEAN or WTO or any other body, a lot of which are toothless anyway.

[jbrain]

Why not just................

Keep it small, keep it simple & keep your assets elsewhere where you can at least read the rules.

and live under a bridge or in a tent genius?

Naam -- just to reinforce my comment about the uncertainty of the future.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662028-support-sought-for-bill-to-curb-foreign-land-grabbers-throughout-thailand/

This time it might not get done, but there is clearly a movement in that direction amongst a fair number of the politicos

i agree that is was always difficult to forecast the future because of its uncertainties

but one should also use some logic when considering what might happen. expropriating (according to KPMG published in 2011) 89,000 properties held by companies and kick out those criminal Farangs? take a wild guess how much these Farangs have spent, are spending and will be spending and how much employment they provide.

You're suggesting now that the Thai government should first think before they open their mouth ?

[jpinx]

Naam -- just to reinforce my comment about the uncertainty of the future.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662028-support-sought-for-bill-to-curb-foreign-land-grabbers-throughout-thailand/

This time it might not get done, but there is clearly a movement in that direction amongst a fair number of the politicos

i agree that is was always difficult to forecast the future because of its uncertainties

but one should also use some logic when considering what might happen. expropriating (according to KPMG published in 2011) 89,000 properties held by companies and kick out those criminal Farangs? take a wild guess how much these Farangs have spent, are spending and will be spending and how much employment they provide.

You're suggesting now that the Thai government should first think before they open their mouth ?

There's probably more thought and research goes into this topic by TV members than by the government, who have a propensity for plucking "facts" out of thin air with absolutely no indication of their basis in realty. Unfortunately the laws are proposed and voted on by such "fact-inventors" so the likelyhood of any real statistics being employed is slim indeed.

One wonders about the impact of the population of individual farangs in Thailand in terms of %age of land occupied, %age of GDP, %age of national consumer spend. It is hard to know where to draw the line between visitor and long term resident.

[manarak]

Before getting all excited over the saber rassling by some populists, let's not forget the following:

- land grabbers: as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it's hardly the farang homeowner they are after. there are corporations grabbing land for the purpose of farming and real estate development/speculation (which is the same). the vast majority of these landgrabbers are from China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and India.

- many of the poo yais are doing huge money in cooperation with the pesky foreigners, farangs and, for the most part, Asians.

- the landgrabbing corporations are well "connected" and probably fund a large part of the "electoral campaigns" as well as many "educational trips" for high ranking officials

Personally, I would say the probability of the government going after farang homeowners is pretty low.

I expect the government to also leave farming corporations alone and guess that foreign real estate speculators/developers would be a prime target if such a law / crackdown is initiated.

Maybe (hopefully?) they will restrict themselves to hunt down large scale landgrabbing by foreigners for commercial profit in real estate.

[Naam]

Naam -- just to reinforce my comment about the uncertainty of the future.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662028-support-sought-for-bill-to-curb-foreign-land-grabbers-throughout-thailand/

This time it might not get done, but there is clearly a movement in that direction amongst a fair number of the politicos

i agree that is was always difficult to forecast the future because of its uncertainties

but one should also use some logic when considering what might happen. expropriating (according to KPMG published in 2011) 89,000 properties held by companies and kick out those criminal Farangs? take a wild guess how much these Farangs have spent, are spending and will be spending and how much employment they provide.

You're suggesting now that the Thai government should first think before they open their mouth ?

whether it's Thailand or any other country, there are always single low ranking clowns who deem it once in a while necessary to stop poking their noses and make a little noise to prove that they still exist.

[MB1]

Naam -- just to reinforce my comment about the uncertainty of the future.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662028-support-sought-for-bill-to-curb-foreign-land-grabbers-throughout-thailand/

This time it might not get done, but there is clearly a movement in that direction amongst a fair number of the politicos

i agree that is was always difficult to forecast the future because of its uncertainties

but one should also use some logic when considering what might happen. expropriating (according to KPMG published in 2011) 89,000 properties held by companies and kick out those criminal Farangs? take a wild guess how much these Farangs have spent, are spending and will be spending and how much employment they provide.

You're suggesting now that the Thai government should first think before they open their mouth ?

whether it's Thailand or any other country, there are always single low ranking clowns who deem it once in a while necessary to stop poking their noses and make a little noise to prove that they still exist.

Naam, whether or not it's some low ranker making noises, I said years ago I will never invest one penny in Thailand and over the years there seems to me to be more uncertainty about how farang/falang stands and if he/she could lose out, over the years it's been red shirts, yellow shirts, what might happen if Mr T gets back, and the rampant corruption, oh and lets not forget the treatment of falang with regards to the changing rules of visas over the years.

I don't want to invest in a country like Thailand and doubt I ever will, I'd rather buy properties in the UK and take my chances there renting them out, that's part of my pension fund plan, I'm by no means rich but neither am I a skint member

.

Some people talk about "only be prepared to invest what you can afford to walk away from and afford to lose" Well a big 2 fingered salute to Thailand and the Thai's from me, I aint prepared to lose anything to Thailand, what I have I'm keeping in the UK and will take the risks there and will just keep traveling to Thailand as and when it suits me and spend what I spend on travel/entertainment costs etc.

For those who have invested, bought property in Thailand, well I hope it all goes well and you keep your investments/property, it would be a sad day for anyone to lose out, but the fact of the matter plenty of falang have lost out already regardless of whether they were a fool in paradise or not..

If any one is thinking I've already invested in Thailand in the pay for play scene, well I was younger and naive and just treated such as slot machines, an adult disney land, only the rides are better...

Edited August 20, 2013 by MB1

[Naam]

Naam, whether or not it's some low ranker making noises, I said years ago I will never invest one penny in Thailand and over the years there seems to me to be more uncertainty about how farang/falang stands and if he/she could lose out, over the years it's been red shirts, yellow shirts, what might happen if Mr T gets back, and the rampant corruption, oh and lets not forget the treatment of falang with regards to the changing rules of visas over the years.

I don't want to invest in a country like Thailand and doubt I ever will, I'd rather buy properties in the UK and take my chances there renting them out, that's part of my pension fund plan, I'm by no means rich but neither am I a skint member

.

Some people talk about "only be prepared to invest what you can afford to walk away from and afford to lose" Well a big 2 fingered salute to Thailand and the Thai's from me, I aint prepared to lose anything to Thailand, what I have I'm keeping in the UK and will take the risks there and will just keep traveling to Thailand as and when it suits me and spend what I spend on travel/entertainment costs etc.

For those who have invested, bought property in Thailand, well I hope it all goes well and you keep your investments/property, it would be a sad day for anyone to lose out, but the fact of the matter plenty of falang have lost out already regardless of whether they were a fool in paradise or not..

If any one is thinking I've already invested in Thailand in the pay for play scene, well I was younger and naive and just treated such as slot machines, an adult disney land, only the rides are better...

i whole-heartedly agree with your statement based on your personal views MB1! but i would like to add that the decision to invest or not to invest in Thailand must be judged based on individual circumstances and perspectives which differ from person to person.

moreover, it also depends on the definition of "investment". go to the farming section in Thaivisa and you find foreigners who have invested to earn a living for themselves, their Thai wives and their children. most of them are hard working but live a rather happy life. i'm sure that some of them have invested the lion share or all of their financial means, but do we blame them for being stupid?

take the [not so] odd foreigner who wants to live in a home or condo with his Thai family but is not willing to ask a landlord whether he is allowed to drill a hole in a kitchen or bathroom tile. do we blame him for "investing" and providing a "non rental" accommodation for himself, his wife and his children?

take the odd foreigner for whom Thailand is a paradise because in his home country they would tax the living sh*t out of him and who could buy with these savings every two years a home valued much more than the value of the average farang owned home. do we blame him because he was stupid and has invested in a rather luxurious home using five years of saved taxes?