11 hours ago, garyk said:

12 hours ago, Naam said:

designed, built and owned! and as of today paid for 2½ times by savings on income tax. when i read rubbish such as "Thailand is more expensive than <insert country>" then i  and

I don't understand that statement, "paid for itself 2.5 time because savings on income tax?"  Are you talking about taxes on a home in another country?

what part of "income tax" is it you don't understand?

29 minutes ago, Naam said:

what part of "income tax" is it you don't understand?

Well how is it owned?company structure?in wife name?usefruct?Because u own a house u save on income tax and that pays the house?

Edited March 29, 20179 yr by Destiny1990

3 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Well how is it owned?company structure?in wife name?usefruct?Because u own a house u save on income tax and that pays the house?

how it is owned is nobody's business but mine. i don't save on income tax because i own a house but because i live in Thailand. and that's the reason why the taxman of my home country Germany can't take 46.5% income and capital gains tax out of my pocket.

3 minutes ago, Naam said:

how it is owned is nobody's business but mine. i don't save on income tax because i own a house but because i live in Thailand. and that's the reason why the taxman of my home country Germany can't take 46.5% income and capital gains tax out of my pocket.

He doesn't  own a house and nobody on this forum does. Let's not get into touchy subjects...

4 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

He doesn't  own a house and nobody on this forum does. Let's not get into touchy subjects...

wrong assumption! my wife and me own the house but not the land.

2 minutes ago, Naam said:

wrong assumption! my wife and me own the house but not the land.

same difference.

Just now, anotheruser said:

same difference.

another wrong assumption.

Just now, Naam said:

another wrong assumption.

I didn't assume anything. We all know what the law is...

4 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

I didn't assume anything. We all know what the law is...

obviously you never heard of "superficies". google is your friend

4 minutes ago, Naam said:

obviously you never heard of "superficies". google is your friend

And what you do with the superficies when the land underneath it is seized by the government because it is owned through an illegal construction?

13 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

And what you do with the superficies when the land underneath it is seized by the government because it is owned through an illegal construction?

the land is not owned by any illegal construction but by a renowned Thai corporation. superficies have a few embedded advantages over a usufruct but we are not interested to use any of the available options. but both superficies and usufruct beat any 30year lease hands down.

8 minutes ago, Naam said:

the land is not owned by any illegal construction but by a renowned Thai corporation. superficies have a few embedded advantages over a usufruct but we are not interested to use any of the available options. but both superficies and usufruct beat any 30year lease hands down.

No idea if renowned or not renowned makes any difference, and also not going to discuss it, but if the powers that be consider that the "renowned" corporation was set up for the single purpose of owning a property, it will be deemed an illegal construction.

1 minute ago, janclaes47 said:

No idea if renowned or not renowned makes any difference, and also not going to discuss it, but if the powers that be consider that the "renowned" corporation was set up for the single purpose of owning a property, it will be deemed an illegal construction.

you are right. now i am scared that the setup of a company that exists since the late 1960s might be considered an illegal construction because it owns the land on which our home was built nearly half a century later.

 

next scary assumption please

6 hours ago, Naam said:

what part of "income tax" is it you don't understand?

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. 

 

3 hours ago, Naam said:

obviously you never heard of "superficies". google is your friend

Obviously you are obstenant. Good luck with your house.

14 hours ago, Naam said:

the land is not owned by any illegal construction but by a renowned Thai corporation. superficies have a few embedded advantages over a usufruct but we are not interested to use any of the available options. but both superficies and usufruct beat any 30year lease hands down.

Exactly right. Anybody saying otherwise has no idea what usufruct or superficies are or how they work. My partner/husband owns the land I own the house. The usufruct is annotated on the chanuk  (must be a red banner chanuk) and gives me absolute rights to the house even if my husband and I part company. This is Thai law and fully enforceable. All you other know it all's are uninformed or paranoid imagining Thailand is such a cowboy country you're either going to be conned or thrown out of the country without just cause. 'Who's that following me?' 'Oh it's only my own shadow'. Get over it you poor paranoid dears and find a reliable, honest lawyer! Yes they do exist believe it or not! 

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 5:18 PM, bmore99 said:

Why bother. Usefruct gives you the legal use and benefits of the land for lifetime. Regardless any change in ownership.

Sent from my SM-A800F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

Exactly correct. I have a usufruct and it's been properly recorded on the chanuk. Cost 100 baht at the Land Office here in Chiang Mai where I live.

15 hours ago, anotheruser said:

I didn't assume anything. We all know what the law is...

But you don't 

Just now, aslimversgwm said:

But you don't 

Yes, I do. 

 

 

Are we really going to pretend we are even having a discussion this way? lol  

 

If people are happy pretending they own something I guess I will just let them live their dream. We all want a home we have keys to tat belongs to somebody after all.

On 28/3/2017 at 8:08 AM, xylophone said:

It has been quoted on similar Thaivisa threads a few times before, so a search might uncover it.

 

 

thanks, always good to get a polite response.

16 hours ago, Naam said:

how it is owned is nobody's business but mine. i don't save on income tax because i own a house but because i live in Thailand. and that's the reason why the taxman of my home country Germany can't take 46.5% income and capital gains tax out of my pocket.

I have a German neighbour...well he used to be. His house is as impressive as yours. You can imagine what happened.  He is back living in Germany, single again and with all his savings gone.

Obviously, you are a lot smarter, judging by your confidence.

One of my least liked people (Maggie Thacher) once said, if you (referring to a country which shall remain unidentified)  are so smart, how come you lost twice, playing your national game?

Advice of the day seems to be ''google is your friend''.

it is not ''chanuk''...it ''Chanote or to give it the official title Nor Sor 4).

 

42 minutes ago, aslimversgwm said:

Exactly right. Anybody saying otherwise has no idea what usufruct or superficies are or how they work. My partner/husband owns the land I own the house. The usufruct is annotated on the chanuk  (must be a red banner chanuk) and gives me absolute rights to the house even if my husband and I part company. This is Thai law and fully enforceable. All you other know it all's are uninformed or paranoid imagining Thailand is such a cowboy country you're either going to be conned or thrown out of the country without just cause. 'Who's that following me?' 'Oh it's only my own shadow'. Get over it you poor paranoid dears and find a reliable, honest lawyer! Yes they do exist believe it or not! 

with all due respect, (as there is so much flying hot air going around).

This from personal experience (one Western vv Thai) and the other Thai vv Thai: if your husband and you part ways (that would be Western vv Thai national) you might still have your usufruct, but do you have registered access (testamentary sp?) over ALL land between you and the pubic road? Thai vv Thai (and it was family, at that) are no better protected. It is Cowboy country. But, like Naam says, it is tax free, which gives one a terrific standard of living, compared with my home country.

17 minutes ago, sendintheclowns said:

between you and the pubic road

There is one of those in Patong and it's called Bangla Road!!!!

 

No disrespect meant, just trying to lighten things up a little!!

2 hours ago, sendintheclowns said:

I have a German neighbour...well he used to be. His house is as impressive as yours. You can imagine what happened.  He is back living in Germany, single again and with all his savings gone.

Obviously, you are a lot smarter, judging by your confidence.

am i smarter because i have a German wife since 1979? 

2 hours ago, sendintheclowns said:

It is Cowboy country. But, like Naam says, it is tax free, which gives one a terrific standard of living, compared with my home country.

2 hours ago, sendintheclowns said:

Exactly right. Anybody saying otherwise has no idea what usufruct or superficies are or how they work. My partner/husband owns the land I own the house.

i my case wife and i own the house (building permit in our name, all payments made by us) and a Thai company owns the land. if i had a Thai wife the setup would be different. i would own the house and a Thai company would own the land. a "sad" setup but in line with reality.

 

any additional hairsplitting pertaining to the definition of "own[ing]" is a waste of time!

Is the current advice here now in case of a land and house purchase its wise to have the land and house to be separated and to put the house in the buyer his name and the land in a company its name and this is legal?

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

Is the current advice here now in case of a land and house purchase its wise to have the land and house to be separated and to put the house in the buyer his name and the land in a company its name and this is legal?

 

Regardless of what Naam want you to believe, it is illegal for a Thai company to be set up for the sole purpose of owning a plot of land.

 

If the company has other activities the company can also own land, but foreign ownership of the company in that case is restricted to 39%, where a company that doesn't own land can have 49% foreign ownership.

14 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

Regardless of what Naam want you to believe, it is illegal for a Thai company to be set up for the sole purpose of owning a plot of land.

 

If the company has other activities the company can also own land, but foreign ownership of the company in that case is restricted to 39%, where a company that doesn't own land can have 49% foreign ownership.

I admit this is mine  understanding also and that is why they are floating the proposal for freehold or expanding  the 30 years current lease term for landplots.