Okay How About My Thai Wife 51% And Me 49%

[thaigene2]

...Or do we need to have a mininium number of Thai partners? I've heard 7 as the number needed. If so, how about my wife is Managing Director, and she own 51%, I own 48% and the other 5 or whatever split the remaining 1 %..is this okay?

Any advice? All I want to do is JOINTLY own the home in both our names..even if that means via a company. And no I don't want a condo nor a house with a 30 year lease with the place 100% in her name. Grateful for advice..

[Morden]

...Or do we need to have a mininium number of Thai partners? I've heard 7 as the number needed. If so, how about my wife is Managing Director, and she own 51%, I own 48% and the other 5 or whatever split the remaining 1 %..is this okay?

Any advice? All I want to do is JOINTLY own the home in both our names..even if that means via a company. And no I don't want a condo nor a house with a 30 year lease with the place 100% in her name. Grateful for advice..

Companies that do not trade and exist only as a device to own land are in breach of the law. The government has recently said that it will investigate Thai shareholders' sources of funds. If your company is found not to be a genuine trading company it may well be forced to sell the land - and you can expect a low price for it. There are probably many headless chicken acts to be seen around Phuket, Samui and Hua Hin right now who thought that they were smarter than the Thai government but who may well lose land and the home with it. The law is clear and always has been.

If your company cannot satisfy the requirements referred to elsewhere on this site, then you will have to trust your wife to own the land. You might want to try a lease from her but I'm not sure what good that might be if you split up. When she buys the land, you will have to go with her to the Land Office and sign a statutory document in which you say that the land and the money with which it is purchased are your wife's and that you have no legal interest therein.

You can own or share ownership of the house, however. You can own a condo.

If you are able, keep a property in your home country just in case.

[~G~]

...Or do we need to have a mininium number of Thai partners? I've heard 7 as the number needed.

You cannot start a company without 7 shareholders.

[splitlid]

well.... well..... well..... didnt know that Morden.

[SunbeltAsia]

...Or do we need to have a mininium number of Thai partners? I've heard 7 as the number needed. If so, how about my wife is Managing Director, and she own 51%, I own 48% and the other 5 or whatever split the remaining 1 %..is this okay?

Any advice? All I want to do is JOINTLY own the home in both our names..even if that means via a company. And no I don't want a condo nor a house with a 30 year lease with the place 100% in her name. Grateful for advice..

Be aware if your wife has the same last name as you, she will count towards the 49% shareholding.

If this will be a office for the company that will be trading and is active ( company not simply formed with the objective to invest in real estate) Then this should not a problem as long as your wife has funds to pay for a portion of the paid up capital of her shares. If the company is 1 million baht. She would need 25% of 510,000 Baht ( on the basis she has a different last name than you). She would either have to have the income to have accumulated this amt or the income to pay back a loan to acquire the shares. The company could accept a loan from one of the directors or another entity, of up to 7 million Baht to buy the office( Both you and your wife can be listed as directors) You of course should have legal strategies in place to protect your interest such as voting rights, etc.

The other 5 shareholders only need 1 share out of 100,000 Shares. Meaning the paid up capital is 10 Baht for the share and of course they will have the income to pay for the share.

www.lawyer.th.com

[Morden]

well.... well..... well..... didnt know that Morden.

So, does that mean that unlike the OP and me, you didn't do your research?

[JimmyGreaves]

...Or do we need to have a mininium number of Thai partners? I've heard 7 as the number needed. If so, how about my wife is Managing Director, and she own 51%, I own 48% and the other 5 or whatever split the remaining 1 %..is this okay?

Any advice? All I want to do is JOINTLY own the home in both our names..even if that means via a company. And no I don't want a condo nor a house with a 30 year lease with the place 100% in her name. Grateful for advice..

Companies that do not trade and exist only as a device to own land are in breach of the law. The government has recently said that it will investigate Thai shareholders' sources of funds. If your company is found not to be a genuine trading company it may well be forced to sell the land - and you can expect a low price for it. There are probably many headless chicken acts to be seen around Phuket, Samui and Hua Hin right now who thought that they were smarter than the Thai government but who may well lose land and the home with it. The law is clear and always has been.

If your company cannot satisfy the requirements referred to elsewhere on this site, then you will have to trust your wife to own the land. You might want to try a lease from her but I'm not sure what good that might be if you split up. When she buys the land, you will have to go with her to the Land Office and sign a statutory document in which you say that the land and the money with which it is purchased are your wife's and that you have no legal interest therein.

You can own or share ownership of the house, however. You can own a condo.

If you are able, keep a property in your home country just in case.

Would have been nice if you only answered the question 'JOINTLY own a house' and not start ranting on about leases, wife ownership only and the law always being clear. Anyone would think that you are a lawyer! TIT and all is not as clear as YOU think or read.

[RAZZELL]

...Or do we need to have a mininium number of Thai partners? I've heard 7 as the number needed. If so, how about my wife is Managing Director, and she own 51%, I own 48% and the other 5 or whatever split the remaining 1 %..is this okay?

Any advice? All I want to do is JOINTLY own the home in both our names..even if that means via a company. And no I don't want a condo nor a house with a 30 year lease with the place 100% in her name. Grateful for advice..

Companies that do not trade and exist only as a device to own land are in breach of the law. The government has recently said that it will investigate Thai shareholders' sources of funds. If your company is found not to be a genuine trading company it may well be forced to sell the land - and you can expect a low price for it. There are probably many headless chicken acts to be seen around Phuket, Samui and Hua Hin right now who thought that they were smarter than the Thai government but who may well lose land and the home with it. The law is clear and always has been.

If your company cannot satisfy the requirements referred to elsewhere on this site, then you will have to trust your wife to own the land. You might want to try a lease from her but I'm not sure what good that might be if you split up. When she buys the land, you will have to go with her to the Land Office and sign a statutory document in which you say that the land and the money with which it is purchased are your wife's and that you have no legal interest therein.

You can own or share ownership of the house, however. You can own a condo.

If you are able, keep a property in your home country just in case.

Pages and pages have been posted on TV about owning a house via the company route...and the legality or quasi-legality of this way of holding such an important (and valuable asset)...

BUT...What if you do trade? What is an acceptable level of turnover???

If you owned say a small bar or restaurant or any other type of business would everything be "hunky-dory?"

What about (for the sake of argument)...a noodle stand?

What actually has to go through the books or be shown to make it "legal"

Many thanks

[topfield]

ANOTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTION

THIS ONE FROM A GERMAN THAI MAGAZINE.

The property is bought by the wife 100 percent and in her name.

The money to pay for it comes from a genuine mortgage loan provided by the husband or an overseas Co of which the husband is Director and secured on the property.. Yes interest must be paid on the mortgage by the wife at the true commercial rate.

Should the wife play silly buggers or run away...the husband just calls in the loan and exercises power of sale.

WILL THIS WORK ?

[SunbeltAsia]

Pages and pages have been posted on TV about owning a house via the company route...and the legality or quasi-legality of this way of holding such an important (and valuable asset)...

BUT...What if you do trade? What is an acceptable level of turnover???

If you owned say a small bar or restaurant or any other type of business would everything be "hunky-dory?"

What about (for the sake of argument)...a noodle stand?

What actually has to go through the books or be shown to make it "legal"

Many thanks

No clear line in the sand except filing a 0 tax return every year as there is no special status for holding or dormant companies. The company must have a purpose other than owning real estate. If that’s to have a noodle shop, the Land Dept would confirm, nothing wrong with that objective. A noodle shop after all is a business and needs a location to operate. Of course if the house is in a community, a proper maintenance contract should of stated no restaurant or retail shop is allowed.

All companies must prepare the financial statements at the end of the year and file with the authorities. If the companies files tax returns for many years with a zeo income, it can be inspected by the government on a random basis. Therefore, there needs to be activity in your company. The financial statements are audited by a Certified Public Accountant signing and having opinions in the auditing report attached to the financial statements. The auditing opinions will have either clean opinions for the financial statements without any questions raised by the CPA, to opinions with remarks in case the CPA has found problems in the accounting records, and refuse to accept them. The opinions of the CPA will obviously affect the ideas of the government who use or inspect these financial statements.

www.lawyer.th.com

[RAZZELL]

Pages and pages have been posted on TV about owning a house via the company route...and the legality or quasi-legality of this way of holding such an important (and valuable asset)...

BUT...What if you do trade? What is an acceptable level of turnover???

If you owned say a small bar or restaurant or any other type of business would everything be "hunky-dory?"

What about (for the sake of argument)...a noodle stand?

What actually has to go through the books or be shown to make it "legal"

Many thanks

No clear line in the sand except filing a 0 tax return every year. The company must have a purpose other than owning real estate. If that’s to have a noodle shop, the Land Dept would confirm, nothing wrong with that objective. A noodle shop after all is a business and needs a location to operate. Of course if the house is in a community, a proper maintenance contract should of stated no restaurant or retail shop is allowed.

www.lawyer.th.com

Sorry Sunbelt, maybe I didn't explain myself properly...Or just to clarify...

Hypothetically, I own a business, a bar or a restaurant, or a consultancy or I make widgets, whatever,...can I own a "house" via my company as just another asset which isn't directly linked to my business???

Thanks again

[SunbeltAsia]

Sorry Sunbelt, maybe I didn't explain myself properly...Or just to clarify...

Hypothetically, I own a business, a bar or a restaurant, or a consultancy or I make widgets, whatever,...can I own a "house" via my company as just another asset which isn't directly linked to my business???

Thanks again

Yes the land can be registered as the asset of the company and the money you paid for the price of land can be recorded for capitalization. If the company owns the land and house as a residence of its director, this will even be ok( the Land Dept would be more comfortable if it was a branch office)

In the current climate, if its for investment purposes and renting it out to another party other than the director, then it will be more problematic and the company will be scrutinized. If it had a history of trading even if it’s a small restaurant, this would be much better than no activity.

www.lawyer.th.com

[SunbeltAsia]

ANOTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTION

THIS ONE FROM A GERMAN THAI MAGAZINE.

The property is bought by the wife 100 percent and in her name.

The money to pay for it comes from a genuine mortgage loan provided by the husband or an overseas Co of which the husband is Director and secured on the property.. Yes interest must be paid on the mortgage by the wife at the true commercial rate.

Should the wife play silly buggers or run away...the husband just calls in the loan and exercises power of sale.

WILL THIS WORK ?

If you lend her money to buy the land and she mortgage that land to you as security for the loan. You would have the burden to prove this was done in good faith. Most Land Offices will not allow the mortgage by a foreigner unless it was a foreign entity with the business objective of lending money.

If it was done in a Thai company structure you would have no burden of proof of the loan to company as the director of the company

Some would argue with a Thai wife, in the current climate, it would be better for the foreigner and his Thai wife to sign a joint declaration to the Land Office upon registration of the ownership of land that the land purchased accordingly will be her private property, and the foreigner has no rights to it. The Thai wife could grant a 30 year right of habitation with the land office on the land to her husband. After the construction of his home, he could apply for the House Registration Certificate under his name. This is a Yellow Book or (Thor.Ror.13)

The house is separate from the land and he owns the house in his name. If the wife make a last will to give the land to her husband, he would have even more protection.

www.lawyer.th.com

[Morden]

Companies that do not trade and exist only as a device to own land are in breach of the law. The government has recently said that it will investigate Thai shareholders' sources of funds. If your company is found not to be a genuine trading company it may well be forced to sell the land - and you can expect a low price for it. There are probably many headless chicken acts to be seen around Phuket, Samui and Hua Hin right now who thought that they were smarter than the Thai government but who may well lose land and the home with it. The law is clear and always has been.

If your company cannot satisfy the requirements referred to elsewhere on this site, then you will have to trust your wife to own the land. You might want to try a lease from her but I'm not sure what good that might be if you split up. When she buys the land, you will have to go with her to the Land Office and sign a statutory document in which you say that the land and the money with which it is purchased are your wife's and that you have no legal interest therein.

You can own or share ownership of the house, however. You can own a condo.

If you are able, keep a property in your home country just in case.

Would have been nice if you only answered the question 'JOINTLY own a house' and not start ranting on about leases, wife ownership only and the law always being clear. Anyone would think that you are a lawyer! TIT and all is not as clear as YOU think or read.

How much do you know about this subject, young Sir? The OP needs advice about land ownership rather than house ownership. Anyone can own a house, don't yer know, but the government doesn't want foreigners to own land. It would be folly to become a house owner without knowing that you can't own the land on which it stands.

Why do some posters persist in misleading OP's and other people into thinking that crazy tricks to get around the law are OK. Why do they persist in saying that the law is unclear? Maybe it's because they have got themselves in deep doo doo and are trying to convince themselves it's OK really. Why do they always shout down those who do understand the law, the spirit of the law and what the government at last is prepared to do? TIT or not, the law is clear!!

Now then, young man, let's have your positive and informed contribution since you think that I'm wrong.

[RAZZELL]

Sorry Sunbelt, maybe I didn't explain myself properly...Or just to clarify...

Hypothetically, I own a business, a bar or a restaurant, or a consultancy or I make widgets, whatever,...can I own a "house" via my company as just another asset which isn't directly linked to my business???

Thanks again

Yes the land can be registered as the asset of the company and the money you paid for the price of land can be recorded for capitalization. If the company owns the land and house as a residence of its director, this will even be ok( the Land Dept would be more comfortable if it was a branch office)

In the current climate, if its for investment purposes and renting it out to another party other than the director, then it will be more problematic and the company will be scrutinized. If it had a history of trading even if it’s a small restaurant, this would be much better than no activity.

www.lawyer.th.com

Thanks Sunbelt...

[Richard Hall]

Why do some posters persist in misleading OP's and other people into thinking that crazy tricks to get around the law are OK. Why do they persist in saying that the law is unclear? Maybe it's because they have got themselves in deep doo doo and are trying to convince themselves it's OK really. Why do they always shout down those who do understand the law, the spirit of the law and what the government at last is prepared to do? TIT or not, the law is clear!!

Easy question, easy answer:

Because they think that they are smarter than the law of a supposed to be overly corrupt country where you can always get yourself out of <deleted> by passing a handful of coins but eventually end up only knowing better when the <deleted> actually hits the fan and the voice turning down quite a bit all of a sudden reaching its summit in desparately uttering TiT, TiT, TiT... translating Tremors In Thailand.

Cheers,

Richard (tired of this TiT justification bull)

Edited June 9, 2006 by Richard Hall

[Morden]

Why do some posters persist in misleading OP's and other people into thinking that crazy tricks to get around the law are OK. Why do they persist in saying that the law is unclear? Maybe it's because they have got themselves in deep doo doo and are trying to convince themselves it's OK really. Why do they always shout down those who do understand the law, the spirit of the law and what the government at last is prepared to do? TIT or not, the law is clear!!

Easy question, easy answer:

Because they think that they are smarter than the law of a supposed to be overly corrupt country where you can always get yourself out of <deleted> by passing a handful of coins but eventually end up only knowing better when the <deleted> actually hits the fan and the voice turning down quite a bit all of a sudden reaching its summit in desparately uttering TiT, TiT, TiT... translating Tremors In Thailand.

Cheers,

Richard (tired of this TiT justification bull)

Spot on, I think, Richard. Perhaps some of these guys, when they stop shouting 'Foul', are about to learn some healthy respect for Thailand! I would have some sympathy but they have been so active in shouting down the advice of others rather than listen that they have only themselves to blame. They would do well now to direct their energy towards selling 'their' land before the pressure is on them and the value crashes.

[JimmyGreaves]

Companies that do not trade and exist only as a device to own land are in breach of the law. The government has recently said that it will investigate Thai shareholders' sources of funds. If your company is found not to be a genuine trading company it may well be forced to sell the land - and you can expect a low price for it. There are probably many headless chicken acts to be seen around Phuket, Samui and Hua Hin right now who thought that they were smarter than the Thai government but who may well lose land and the home with it. The law is clear and always has been.

If your company cannot satisfy the requirements referred to elsewhere on this site, then you will have to trust your wife to own the land. You might want to try a lease from her but I'm not sure what good that might be if you split up. When she buys the land, you will have to go with her to the Land Office and sign a statutory document in which you say that the land and the money with which it is purchased are your wife's and that you have no legal interest therein.

You can own or share ownership of the house, however. You can own a condo.

If you are able, keep a property in your home country just in case.

Would have been nice if you only answered the question 'JOINTLY own a house' and not start ranting on about leases, wife ownership only and the law always being clear. Anyone would think that you are a lawyer! TIT and all is not as clear as YOU think or read.

How much do you know about this subject, young Sir? The OP needs advice about land ownership rather than house ownership. Anyone can own a house, don't yer know, but the government doesn't want foreigners to own land. It would be folly to become a house owner without knowing that you can't own the land on which it stands.

Why do some posters persist in misleading OP's and other people into thinking that crazy tricks to get around the law are OK. Why do they persist in saying that the law is unclear? Maybe it's because they have got themselves in deep doo doo and are trying to convince themselves it's OK really. Why do they always shout down those who do understand the law, the spirit of the law and what the government at last is prepared to do? TIT or not, the law is clear!!

Now then, young man, let's have your positive and informed contribution since you think that I'm wrong.

Just keep to the question asked by the OP as talking about leases etc can be found on numerous threads on this forum. Just wastes others time reading irrelevant details in the thread!

[JimmyGreaves]

Why do some posters persist in misleading OP's and other people into thinking that crazy tricks to get around the law are OK. Why do they persist in saying that the law is unclear? Maybe it's because they have got themselves in deep doo doo and are trying to convince themselves it's OK really. Why do they always shout down those who do understand the law, the spirit of the law and what the government at last is prepared to do? TIT or not, the law is clear!!

Easy question, easy answer:

Because they think that they are smarter than the law of a supposed to be overly corrupt country where you can always get yourself out of <deleted> by passing a handful of coins but eventually end up only knowing better when the <deleted> actually hits the fan and the voice turning down quite a bit all of a sudden reaching its summit in desparately uttering TiT, TiT, TiT... translating Tremors In Thailand.

Cheers,

Richard (tired of this TiT justification bull)

You must be living in another country. You telling me that this is squekky clean. Just ask bar owners, car drivers etc etc etc who have to pay out to the odd corrupt official. TIT with all it's good and bad. All countries have these characteristics in different areas.

Edited June 9, 2006 by jflundy

[JimmyGreaves]

Why do some posters persist in misleading OP's and other people into thinking that crazy tricks to get around the law are OK. Why do they persist in saying that the law is unclear? Maybe it's because they have got themselves in deep doo doo and are trying to convince themselves it's OK really. Why do they always shout down those who do understand the law, the spirit of the law and what the government at last is prepared to do? TIT or not, the law is clear!!

Easy question, easy answer:

Because they think that they are smarter than the law of a supposed to be overly corrupt country where you can always get yourself out of <deleted> by passing a handful of coins but eventually end up only knowing better when the <deleted> actually hits the fan and the voice turning down quite a bit all of a sudden reaching its summit in desparately uttering TiT, TiT, TiT... translating Tremors In Thailand.

Cheers,

Richard (tired of this TiT justification bull)

Spot on, I think, Richard. Perhaps some of these guys, when they stop shouting 'Foul', are about to learn some healthy respect for Thailand! I would have some sympathy but they have been so active in shouting down the advice of others rather than listen that they have only themselves to blame. They would do well now to direct their energy towards selling 'their' land before the pressure is on them and the value crashes.

Scaremongering. As said before you are not a lawyer. ps can you find a case of a single farang whose 49% company has been closed and land taken away and who has lost everything. If not SHUT UP and leave law to lawyers not laymen!

Edited June 9, 2006 by jflundy

[Morden]

Scaremongering. As said before you are not a lawyer. ps can you find a case of a single farang whose 49% company has been closed and land taken away and who has lost everything. If not SHUT UP and leave law to lawyers not laymen!

You say a lot but impart very little. You are dragging the thread way off topic so let's just return to it and move on. The OP is thinking about the possibility of setting up a company to own, he says, a house. The real issue before him is ownership of the land. Many farang have fallen into the pit of inappropriate company land ownership and it's only right that the OP should be forewarned. If that, to mix metaphors, treads on the corns of those already in the pit, that's tough. It may be too late for them but there's no reason why the OP should be dragged in with them.

I think that you know very little about this subject. Why do you think that the government will close the companies and confiscate the land? Look around you here for clues about the law; not the posts of those in fear but the English language translations of the law. It's there for all to see. The government has recently threatened to investigate companies of the type in question. It will include investigations to establish from where the Thai shareholders of the companies obtained their funds to buy the shares. Companies that do not comply with the very clear regulations can be made to sell their land. Forced sales often attract low offers.

The company route to doubtful ownership, in the past frequently recommended here and by some developers and their agents, as far as I know has not yet been challenged to the extent that a company has been forced to sell its land. That's the point; the government is about to do just that! Don't buy land through a company unless you are absolutely sure that you know the law.

[thaigene2]

Hi I'm the OP. Thanks for the advice..even though you got a bit sidetracked. Without reopening your feuds, and yes one of you is correct, the point here is JOINTLY owing something.

I spoke to one of the people at one of the farang law firms here a couple of years ago and was told (about condos mind you...) that if a foreigner were to try to jointly register a condo in his name as well as his Thai wife (in my case she has same last name), that the Land Office would still see it as 100% owned by the foreigner! Sounds stupid..but that was the advice - in this case we were trying to find a way to use my 40% cash in Thailand and then get a mortgage in her name.

I agree though the law is the law, we were warned about this by the govt a year or two ago..so anyone who ignored that and bought through a company anyway got what they deserved - a market where few if any people will buy from them. They may not lose their land..but they're screwed I reckon unless (my original thought) they start a legit company with their wife as MD and then buy the house under the company name with the foreigner as the minority shareholder - JOINTLY..ya see??

[rishi]

... in this case we were trying to find a way to use my 40% cash in Thailand and then get a mortgage in her name...

In case you want a mortgage from a Thai bank, you're not likely to have the company option nor any other option on having your name on anything - unless you can wait untill the company is at least 2 years old and has been doing well. At least that's the requirements at Kasikorn Bank.

[what next?]

I think this will be my first post here…and ….I need to post…. so hello.

Reading the numerous boards available regarding Thailand, you can see they cover just about every subject.

It’s a fantastic way for us all to research-- from cost of living- to threesomes- to flights -to visas and to property.

There some of us who think we own land.

I think it’s fair to say that we are all in the same un-seaworthy boat regarding owning a house and the land it’s on.

Nobody here can afford to be smug , have a heart guys as this impinges upon current and future retirees’ plans. This may concern your friend or your neighbour.

No matter which convoluted agreement that we personally choose to believe is correct e.g.

A 30 year lease, a holding company, or a land office (hearsay) agreement/contract between Thai wife and foreign husband.

They all mean we have to concede a lot of rights to what we’ve paid for-- immaterial

whether you can afford to write it off or not.

Usufruct and 30 year lease agreements are suddenly en vogue? They’ve always been available.

However many informed and intelligent people chose ‘the company way’ and not without reason.

Question.

You are the foreign director of a generic holding company with a 49% share.

Your company has been used to ‘own your property’ (yes, yes we know it’s illegal)

You are legally married to a TG (who unfortunately can’t be fully trusted)

And you merely want to live long and quietly here (or perhaps sell and move in the future).

You are not a developer or speculator, American, or BOI candidate.

……….just joe bloggs (retired).

What will you do now?

I’d appreciate a clear, concise, straight answer from any BM.

Especially one that can read legal Thai?

BTW I'm one of those terrible people who has a modest home thro' a holding company.

maybe I'll be compensated like the Lloyds names were

PS Thailand eventually sorted out the immigration rules for retirement at 50, and well done too!

[Richard Hall]

You must be living in another country.

I have been living and working legally in Thailand constantly for more than 6 years. If this refers to "another" country well, then the answer is yes.

You telling me that this is squekky clean.

Nope. My message is just simple: Stick to the law independant from where you live.

Just ask bar owners...

Sorry, not my usual company and communication partners and actually I prefer keeping it this way.

car drivers

... start realising more and more that it's not like it used to be anymore which means a trip to the police station becomes much more common nowadays. In many cases it pretty much depends on the caller and his/her behaviour and sometimes they leave you off the hook with a warning (smile) or quite cheap. Knowing the Thai way is indeed very crucial for long time residents which also includes to have almost close to fluent language skills. Actually, such knowledge can make life a lot easier and cheaper at least in the country I have been living in and eventually helps to let fade away that TIT expression quite a bit.

Unfortunately, in my personal opinions too many foreigner got their priorities wrong and should rather shift them from amber liquid to the language books. No, I do not mean as an English teacher but rather a Thai student.

etc etc etc

Actually, I rather rely on my own experiences than the rumbling of this group.

to pay the odd corrupt official

Well, since I personally do not interact with the odd corrupt official I also do not pay him but rather hand voluntarily my favorite policeman taking care of the traffic in front of my daughter's school an occasional cool beverage on the very hot days.

TIT with all it's good and bad. All countries have these characteristics in different areas.

Absolutely, but how about just changing the chorus ocassionally and if it is just for the sake to get the boredom and monotony out of it: TIGER, TIGB, TIUSA, TIF to be continued.

Last but not least a little aesop to close off:

Eventually, even the strongest raddle snake is gonna end up with a sore tail from too much rattling. Relevance to Thailand? Mighty have because TIT.

Heaps of regards from BKK,

Richard

Edited June 9, 2006 by Richard Hall

[Morden]

What Next?, if all of the options, prudent or reckless, are underscored by lack of trust in one's wife, then the answer must surely be that one buys nothing. How about renting as an option? Or divorce, perchance?

It must be one of the saddest lifestyles in the world to have paid for land in a way that the law does not recognise, to have an untrustworthy wife (or could it sometimes be the case that the husband hasn't taken the trouble to learn about her and her culture?) and to have one's view of Thailand clouded by excess alcohol. Don't you just pity those poor souls? Aren't you glad that you're not one of them?

[SunbeltAsia]

You are the foreign director of a generic holding company with a 49% share

.

That in itself by being a director or having 49% of the shares is not illegal as long as its trading and the Thai shareholders are not nominees. The Land Dept will verify this.

Your company has been used to ‘own your property’ (yes, yes we know it’s illegal)

Actually its not illegal or the land would never been allowed to register in the first place. This property can be your office of the company or the residence of the MD. The Land Dept will verify this in itself is not illegal for a company to own property.

So what could be illegal in your company? Is your company not active or the Thai shareholders in the company do not have the income to support ownership of the shares?

Having a active company is easy enough. Having Thai nationals or another Thai company own shares in this company is what you have to look at accomplishing to be legal.

How bout if your wife got a salary from the company to export product from Thailand and sell it on E-bay. She can pay for the shares by working. If she owned 51% of the shares this would be 510,000 Baht on a 1 million Baht company. She could pay for 25% of the shares in cash ( 125,000 Baht) and the rest in a salary for the shares by working for the company. This way you have a real shareholder and a active company. Your wife could be a Director in the company as well to file the audits, open a bank account, etc.

You would still have control over the company if you had good legal advice before with voting rights, etc.

Once again, a Thai Company in itself owning land is not illegal. Make it legal, and you will be fine.

www.lawyer.th.com

[stevehaigh]

Be aware if your wife has the same last name as you, she will count towards the 49% shareholding.

so are you saying if i own 49% and my wife owns 50% and she has my last name, then the land department figures i own 99% BUT if she keeps her old name then the land department figures i own 49% even through we are married?

can i ask, where is the source of this info, it's the first i've heard of it.

thanks, steve

[BKK90210]

I think what SB is saying....

If she has your lastname then her shares will be counted in that 49% of yours, because they will be considered as a community property. So both of you will have only 49%, therefore that will still left 51% for other thai shareholders

I've never heard of this rule, but I think that's what SB is saying

[SunbeltAsia]

Be aware if your wife has the same last name as you, she will count towards the 49% shareholding.

so are you saying if i own 49% and my wife owns 50% and she has my last name, then the land department figures i own 99% BUT if she keeps her old name then the land department figures i own 49% even through we are married?

can i ask, where is the source of this info, it's the first i've heard of it.

thanks, steve

The experience of having clients not being able to register land because of this fact. It is not published anywhere, it’s the officers discretion at the Land Office. At the same time, they will state they have no problem with the Thai wife ( with the same last name) being one of the Thai shareholders after the land is registered but not before the registration because it was too much foreign because of the community property.

Now this could be a case by case situation but a couple times as well, it was not a problem but if you have had it delay the registration at the Land Dept, better to just point it out. After you touch the stove a couple times and it was hot, not interested in touching it anymore to do a analysis, how many times the stove was hot and how many times it was cold. Thai wives can get hot just like a stove when their name can not be one of the shareholders and the officer is delaying the closing of the house.

If she has your lastname then her shares will be counted in that 49% of yours, because they will be considered as a community property. So both of you will have only 49%, therefore that will still left 51% for other thai shareholders

You hit it on the head. Thanks for doing a better job in explaining it.

www.lawyer.th.com