Usufruct and 30 Year Lease on Same Chanote?

[JJJIIIMMM]

On 14/06/2017 at 9:30 PM, Khun Jean said:

The 39% is to escape scrutiny when land title is transferred to the company.

After the transfer you can then increase your share to 49%.

It is just a little extra step that makes this more smooth.

 

I am not in the same situation but if i was, i would not use the 'company' loophole. I would just stick to a lease/usufruct.

Having 49% in a company probably also makes you worth more dead then alive. 

 

the way the accountant says they do it down here, is to have three thais in the company, and no farangs.  the land is transferred to the company, and then the shareholders are adjusted afterwards, moving the farang back into the company.  What is in place to stop the farang worrying he is investing millions into a company that he is not even a shareholder of, i am not sure yet.  But i will ask him next week.

 

I guess with usufruct vs company - the land automatically would go to the land owner if something was to happen to me.  Whereas, with a company, the company shares could be left to my heirs, so it would only be my heirs knocking me off that i would have to worry about :)

 

Your information is great Kuhn Jean - thanks plenty mate

[kimmy]

Forget and forget about usufruct. Say you are in your thirties or forties or even fifties and you have a usufruct? You never never never can sell it. Do you want to live in this location till you die, probably not.  What do you think, you can sell it, rent it out? you may live there but you are also reponsible for the property. When you move out because you want to live somewhere else the real Thai owners likely move in and legally they may even have arguments. Better rent, rent, rent, rent for a month or year. if you really want to buy then use a company, but you really have to inform yourself, if you use a company at least there are no real Thai owners who want to take back the property because they are the owner on paper...

 
For KJ, really you are more dead with a supid usufruct, don’t do it, third party usufruct as KJ suggest, it is an insult for your wife, girlfriend or frien, suggesting you do not trust him or her.. What a BS usufruct is as a personal investment. do not do it, do not get involved. WHY!
 

[Khun Jean]

If you trust your wife then a usufruct is good to have when she dies before you.

Include one of your 'heirs' on a usufruct and after you die they 'inherit' it.

With a company you not have one party to worry about as with a usufruct but at least two. Three shareholders is the minimum and 51% of the shares must be in Thai hands. Sure you can have preferential shares until that law is reviewed when a company is only used for holding land. You would also need to proof that the 51% procent in Thai hands are not nominees, as in they should put in cash too. Sure you can borrow them the money but that is just another loophole that is going to be closed.

I rather have a 30 year lease (or usufruct) as they are much stronger and stable rights. Nothing to worry about for at least the next 30 years.

 

[rumak]

On 6/6/2017 at 12:46 PM, happylarry said:

I think you will find that when it comes to dealing with real people then the "rule book" is normally as a guideline, not as hard and fast rules that have to be adhered to regardless of circumstances, the divorce courts are there to make decisions based on what is deemed best for each and both parties depending on the  circumstances and when children are involved then they become the priority in the case too,  not your rule book.

So do I take it that you are just quoting from your rule books then and not quoting from any real experience. Never mind mate, I am finished with this thread....lol

as I said before people can believe what they want to regardless....aye.

Have a good day.

HL

found this old thread today      hahaha    sometimes i make the mistake of quoting from my real life experience and then get into futile arguments with those that don't know but think they do.

i feel you frustations !   lol