Guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 I think that SingaporeSteve is entirely correct in this being nothing new. It has also been pointed out that this is refreshed application of existing law. I believe this will be smoothed out over the next few weeks and the result will be a new set of (standard) paperwork concerning the finances of Thai shareholders around the time of their receiving shares in a company, and possible (withholding?) taxes to pay at that time. Existing companies may have to get this paperwork produced for their own shareholders. As long as these Thais' economies are in order, there is nothing illegal in a company with foreign shares owning land, or in the foreigner having executive power. It is also the director's perogative to pay out dividend or not. Jai yen yen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 hhcraig and madstockbroker: Me thinks you guys are living in a bubble. Thai law prohibits ownership of land by foreigners. When it comes to non-income producing property, use of nominee shareholders to circumvent the law was always on shaky ground. If a well connected thai wanted that land all he would need do is take the farang to court and the judge could find that the arrangement violates the basic law against land ownership. (This is de ja vu i know we had a thread on this in the legal forum a few months back). Now, instead of the courts, its the gov. They have declared war on foreigners owning land. Its extremely bad advice for you guys to say its all legal if the nominee thai shareholders have income. That is bullshit. First, the nominees that the lawfirms used may not have had an income to justify the purchase of a 3 or 4 million baht property. Second, the nominees income is irrelevant anyway. The question to be answered when these auditors investigate is: Has the thai law prohibiting farang ownership of land been circumvented. When they ask these nominee shareholders how often they have used the property, they are going to say never. That is when the house of cards comes crashing down. Anyone who would try to buy land at this stage is making a huge mistake. And the guys who have the land now ought to be getting the lube out in preparation for a thorough ass fucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 and then there is the possibility that a person can be accused of buying property, or whatever, will illegally obtained funds and everything gets seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 I've said this before in another thread or two. ...Rent! It's cheap in most cases, protects your ass and assets, and gives you the ability to leave in an instant without much loss of money if the place turns to shit (which can happen if anyone remembers the not too distant history of this country). Especially when considering the stability of the Thai government at the moment and its zenophobic and bigoted leaders. You'd be better off just using the money you would use to buy property here in Thailand to buy some income property in your home country, which would likely cover your rent expenses here, and much more. And, you can leave the property to your kids, other deserving relatives, or even your Thai wife if you have one or any kids you have by her, which would be much more sensible then wasting money on a property you don't even own and can never own according to Thai law. Plus the farang property will likely be a better place to put your money, gives you tax write-offs as well, and, as said, can be willed to others upon your death. Why do farangs go to these great lengths and schemes to sidestep these laws just to 'own' in Thailand (especially as they never 'really' own anything)? Until Thailand changes these unfair laws about property ownership of farangs in Thailand the most sensible thing to do is to rent. Or, since owning a condo is legal here, buy a condo, but that has its own set of problems as well. Rent it. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 My wife for years has wanted me to buy a house. She says renting is throwing away money, and in truth it is. I've spent a few million baht in rent over the years -- money which could have gone into a nice home somewhere. Then again, I could have ended up losing it all anyway. Nowadays foreigners legally married to a Thai national can own a small amount of land for a home. (About as much as I would consider the front yard in the States!) But before that, even Thais married to foreigners lost the right to buy land. Thais seem paranoid about foreigners buying up their country. Well, I've got news for them. These laws do not stop the big companies -- the ones who actually can buy up almost anything they chose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Hi Mac, "Nowadays foreigners legally married to a Thai national can own a small amount of land for a home." Sorry but no, not related to your marital status if you invest 40 million baht you can buy 1 rai to build a home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 MaiLuk said:Thai law prohibits ownership of land by foreigners. When it comes to non-income producing property... when these auditors investigate is: Has the thai law prohibiting farang ownership of land been circumvented. BUT, if you buy the house to run a noodle stand out of it (that makes fuk'all) but is income producing then your are not in violation. Even a noodlestand has to have someplace to operate. <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limbo Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Yep, But would that noodle stand owner (Thai, sublet to him) have to pay tax, the same way every Westerner has to pay tax in a similar situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegasdave49 Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Well spain isnt the only place. The supreme court in the US came out with a decission regarding eminent domain. They found that a city or town can take over (forcefully purchase) any property for any development they want. This includes reselling the property to a devloper. Land of the free, right. more like the land of the fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Los Angeles did that all the time even when I was a kid. The city would decide to widen a street and just take over your front yard. If you didn't like it, tough sh*t. Ever hear about Chavez Ravine? It was a working class neighbourhood the city seized to build a baseball park. The home owners -- mainly Hispanic -- screamed bloody murder, but to no avail. (Of course, that was before the Hispanics took over LA.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.