30.01.2013 Views

Samui Phangan Real Estate Magazine February-March

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ealty in focus l tax corner<br />

ISSUES WITH SPECIFIC<br />

BUSINESS TAX AND HOW THESE CAN<br />

BE RESOLVED BY ARBITRATION<br />

DUENSING KIPPEN<br />

is a multi-service boutique<br />

law firm specializing in property and<br />

corporate/commercial matters and<br />

arbitration and litigation proceedings<br />

arising therefrom.<br />

DUEINSING KIPPEN<br />

is also the only such firm<br />

in Thailand that compliments its<br />

property and<br />

corporate/commercial legal expertise<br />

with a core<br />

tax law practice.<br />

DUENISING KIPPEN<br />

is also the only firm in Thailand with<br />

three Members (MCIArb) of the<br />

Chartered Institute<br />

of Arbitrators.<br />

DUENSING KIPPEN<br />

can be reached at:<br />

samui@duensingkippen.com or for<br />

more information please visit them at:<br />

www.duensingkippen.com<br />

52 samui phangan real estate<br />

A contract involving a real estate transaction usually includes a provision<br />

for fees and taxes. Very often the burden of payment of such fees and<br />

taxes is contractually shifted to the purchaser.<br />

It is already common knowledge that the Condominium Act No. 4 B.E.<br />

2551 (“CA”), specifically restricts the freedom of contract in this regard<br />

and regulates which party is subject to the payment of the specific<br />

business tax (“SBT”) when it comes to the transfer of a condominium from<br />

a developer to a purchaser. The restriction for condominium developers<br />

requesting payment of the SBT from the purchaser through a clause in the<br />

condominium sale and purchase agreement is well documented in the CA.<br />

Interestingly, certain regulations applicable prior to the CA seem to be well<br />

forgotten by condominium developers in Thailand. Therefore, contracts<br />

entered into prior to the enactment of the CA also frequently include<br />

clauses that shift the burden of the SBT payment to the purchaser.<br />

Developers are insisting on such payment in accordance with such an<br />

agreement by arguing that the CA which outlaws such a provision was<br />

not applicable on the date of execution of the agreement. Many buyers<br />

are unaware that such clauses have been unenforceable even prior to the<br />

enactment of the CA.<br />

Sections 35bis, 35ter and 35quarter of the Consumer Protection Act in<br />

conjunction with the corresponding Announcements for Condominium<br />

Business stated well before the applicability of the CA that the SBT is<br />

payable solely by the developer. Such regulations specifically overrule any<br />

contract term entered into by the developer and the purchaser relating to<br />

the SBT liability of the purchaser.<br />

Since the SBT at its current rate of 3.3 percent of the purchase price is a<br />

significant cost to the developer, it is not uncommon that the developer<br />

refuses to accept the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act<br />

and is unwilling to transfer the condominium to the purchaser without<br />

receiving the SBT amount first. In such an event will the purchaser need<br />

to enforce the contract and the law. However, the settlement of the issue<br />

of SBT liability or the settlement of other contractual issues between the<br />

parties through the local courts can be agonisingly slow. It is therefore<br />

important to understand that the parties have the option to settle their<br />

dispute fast and efficient through the mechanism of “alternative dispute<br />

resolution”. The “alternative” means “other than going to court”. One<br />

such longstanding alternative gaining evermore international recognition,<br />

is arbitration. Arbitration is the most commonly used formal alternative to<br />

domestic court proceedings, especially for disputes between parties in<br />

different countries. From a legal perspective Thailand was a relative “late<br />

comer” to the arbitration scene, enacting its first law governing arbitration<br />

in 1987. Then in 2002 Thailand enacted the current Arbitration Act which

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!