How easy it is to buy a house through company in CM?

[northernjohn]

No where near being an expert on the subject. But opening up a company would that not require tax money to the government. How many years can you show a loss.

Besides I think it is just a troll. 30 year lease is plenty. Many of us are at the stage of life where we may not live that long. If a person is at an age where they can reasonably expect to live that long It would follow that it is unreasonable to live in the same place for the next 30 years. It would be interesting to hear from Ex Pats who have bought a house on property with a 30 year lease and later sold it. Was it any harder than selling it if it was not on a lease.

Seems like there would be a lot less people qualified to buy it outright with a legal company.

[evenstevens]

n/j do hope i am on the right track with the 30yr lease etc etc . you can add rider clauses to the contract which enables you the full right to sell within that time frame, of course there are sweetners in place (cash) which are mutually agreed and signed by both parties,win win so to speak, have done the same(9 yrs ago) with my girl friend, and feel very comfortable about the situation,just cross the tees and dot the eyes.all have a very nice evening

[expatsupreme]

i am almost 40, so i guess i need a 40 year lease at least, and wouldnt it be nice to leave it to my kid someday instead of smiling thai, with grin from ear to ear when he get the house for free?

[expatsupreme]

I would do it if I would get a hosue for around 900000 bht, that is not such a bad investment

[evenstevens]

expatsupreme,see u in the spring,full stop

[eyecatcher]

This is how I have always understood it to be: –

It is illegal to set up a company to purely own the house and land in question. And it is illegal for a foreigner to own land in Thailand, apart from investing many tens of millions of dollars (not sure of the actual amount).

Many of the companies which have been set up in the past with regards to home ownership (and supposedly land ownership) do have Thai shareholders who have to own 51% of the company. The usual ploy is that after a while, these shareholders sign over their shares to the farang (for a payment), thereby on paper allowing him/her to "own" the company and in theory owning the house plus the land.

If the main asset of the company is the house and land, then there is a value on it, and the Thai shareholders would have to stump up with 51% of that value between them in order to own 51% of the company. And that is where the authorities have started to clamp down, seeking out the Thai partners and going through their financial records to see if they actually did put money into the company.

As for leases, then there is only one which is recognised by the courts, and that is a 30 year lease, and any offers of 2 x 30 year leases or 3 x 30 year leases are misleading, because they will not stand scrutiny and are actually not recognised by the courts.

Always willing to learn if this is not correct, so would welcome any other posts on it.

And imagine how hard is it to sell a house if it has a lease on it? And after 30 years are gone, the house becomes the ownership of the land owner, so he would be mad to give you another lease for 30 years, he rather sells it

Not too sure about that aspect, however as I understand it the purchaser still owns the house/building but has to re-negotiate the lease on the land.

If the landlord wants to play games in order to acquire the house then they hold the trump cards and can play all sorts of games in order to get it.

Sorry the landlord doesn't hold the trump card.

The house is not owned by him, so if the landlord will not renew then the tenant can strip everything out .........and wave his bulldozer in.

The best "twos up" ever in my opinion.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Sorry the landlord doesn't hold the trump card.

The house is not owned by him, so if the landlord will not renew then the tenant can strip everything out .........and wave his bulldozer in.

The best "twos up" ever in my opinion.

I haven't seen many 30 year old houses in Thailand I would like to own, but I would be more than happy to have the land they sit on.

[Oscar2]

No where near being an expert on the subject. But opening up a company would that not require tax money to the government. How many years can you show a loss.

Besides I think it is just a troll. 30 year lease is plenty. Many of us are at the stage of life where we may not live that long. If a person is at an age where they can reasonably expect to live that long It would follow that it is unreasonable to live in the same place for the next 30 years. It would be interesting to hear from Ex Pats who have bought a house on property with a 30 year lease and later sold it. Was it any harder than selling it if it was not on a lease.

Seems like there would be a lot less people qualified to buy it outright with a legal company.

you can only operate at a loss for 5 years in Thailand as I understand it.

[Cnxforever]

it is illegal. The chances of getting caught or reported are rare but it is fraud.

Saying it is illegal does not make it so.

Why is it illegal if you have a properly funded company with the correct shareholders, according to the law?

You are right if you have a properly funded company and real shareholders in a performing company - meaning not set up for the sole purpose of buying property then it is absolutely legal.

[xylophone]

This is how I have always understood it to be: –

It is illegal to set up a company to purely own the house and land in question. And it is illegal for a foreigner to own land in Thailand, apart from investing many tens of millions of dollars (not sure of the actual amount).

Many of the companies which have been set up in the past with regards to home ownership (and supposedly land ownership) do have Thai shareholders who have to own 51% of the company. The usual ploy is that after a while, these shareholders sign over their shares to the farang (for a payment), thereby on paper allowing him/her to "own" the company and in theory owning the house plus the land.

If the main asset of the company is the house and land, then there is a value on it, and the Thai shareholders would have to stump up with 51% of that value between them in order to own 51% of the company. And that is where the authorities have started to clamp down, seeking out the Thai partners and going through their financial records to see if they actually did put money into the company.

As for leases, then there is only one which is recognised by the courts, and that is a 30 year lease, and any offers of 2 x 30 year leases or 3 x 30 year leases are misleading, because they will not stand scrutiny and are actually not recognised by the courts.

Always willing to learn if this is not correct, so would welcome any other posts on it.

And imagine how hard is it to sell a house if it has a lease on it? And after 30 years are gone, the house becomes the ownership of the land owner, so he would be mad to give you another lease for 30 years, he rather sells it

Not too sure about that aspect, however as I understand it the purchaser still owns the house/building but has to re-negotiate the lease on the land.

If the landlord wants to play games in order to acquire the house then they hold the trump cards and can play all sorts of games in order to get it.

Sorry the landlord doesn't hold the trump card.

The house is not owned by him, so if the landlord will not renew then the tenant can strip everything out .........and wave his bulldozer in.

The best "twos up" ever in my opinion.

Well in my book the landlord does hold the trump card!

You are left with a house that you can't live in, and what use is a bulldozed house, if indeed the landlord gives you permission to allow a bulldozer on his land!

He is in a position to ban you from entering the place but MAY make you a small offer on the house if he wants.

As I said, he holds the trump cards whichever way you look at it.

[northernjohn]

No where near being an expert on the subject. But opening up a company would that not require tax money to the government. How many years can you show a loss.

Besides I think it is just a troll. 30 year lease is plenty. Many of us are at the stage of life where we may not live that long. If a person is at an age where they can reasonably expect to live that long It would follow that it is unreasonable to live in the same place for the next 30 years. It would be interesting to hear from Ex Pats who have bought a house on property with a 30 year lease and later sold it. Was it any harder than selling it if it was not on a lease.

Seems like there would be a lot less people qualified to buy it outright with a legal company.

you can only operate at a loss for 5 years in Thailand as I understand it.

He obviously only wants the company to buy a piece of property.

Have no figures on it but I would be willing to bet that out of every 100 foreigners buying a house with the property in the wife's name there is probably only one that has the house completely in her name. Most of them also have the 30 year lease so makes no difference they still have the house after a split. Even a stupid lawyer could do that rite.

The guy is a troll worrying about a house he doesn't own. What will happen to it in 30 years. It will probably be abandoned.

Edited May 9, 2014 by northernjohn

[beau thai]

Having waded through this thread I feel none the wiser and I am happy that i 'only' own a condo.....

[Chicog]

Having waded through this thread I feel none the wiser and I am happy that i 'only' own a condo.....

Even that has legal requirements; 49% etc.

[beau thai]

Having waded through this thread I feel none the wiser and I am happy that i 'only' own a condo.....

Even that has legal requirements; 49% etc.

Surely not many condos at 49% in Chiang Mai? Riverside, seabreeze? others??

And what is etc. in your view for other legals?

[Chicog]

Having waded through this thread I feel none the wiser and I am happy that i 'only' own a condo.....

Even that has legal requirements; 49% etc.

Surely not many condos at 49% in Chiang Mai? Riverside, seabreeze? others??

And what is etc. in your view for other legals?

What do you mean "other legals"?

Either you legally own a condo or you don't.

Generally speaking only 49% of a condo building can be owned by foreigners. I believe they made an exception to this for a few years once, but at present I'm pretty certain it's 49%.

[beau thai]

Having waded through this thread I feel none the wiser and I am happy that i 'only' own a condo.....

Even that has legal requirements; 49% etc.

Surely not many condos at 49% in Chiang Mai? Riverside, seabreeze? others??

And what is etc. in your view for other legals?

What do you mean "other legals"?

Either you legally own a condo or you don't.

Generally speaking only 49% of a condo building can be owned by foreigners. I believe they made an exception to this for a few years once, but at present I'm pretty certain it's 49%.

I guess I didnt communicate well.

I understand the 49% and was suggesting it does not apply in many places. As for 'other legals' I was asking what you meant when you said 'even that has legal requirements; 49% etc' What is the etc??

[Chicog]

You have to prove the money you're buying it with came from overseas.

And I think it has to be a freehold property.