In international corporate structuring, Thailand has traditionally been associated with manufacturing enterprises, the tourism sector, and regional operating companies. In recent years, however, foreign investors have increasingly considered Thai companies not only as vehicles for conducting local business activities but also as potential holding structures for owning assets, holding shares in subsidiary companies, and managing international investments.

‍

This growing interest is driven by several factors, including Thailand’s stable economy, well-developed banking system, extensive network of double taxation agreements, and the government’s efforts to attract foreign capital. At the same time, using a Thai company as a holding vehicle involves a number of legal, tax, and regulatory considerations that should be carefully evaluated at the structuring stage.

‍

1. Why entrepreneurs consider Thailand as a holding jurisdiction

‍

When discussing holding structures in Asia, entrepreneurs most often focus on Singapore, Hong Kong, or the UAE. However, Thailand is increasingly attracting attention as an alternative jurisdiction for international corporate structuring, particularly for businesses with commercial interests in Southeast Asia.

‍

One of the key factors is Thailand’s relatively stable economic and financial environment. The country has one of the largest economies in Southeast Asia and a well-developed financial sector supervised by the Bank of Thailand (BOT). Under the Bank of Thailand Act, one of the central bank’s primary objectives is to maintain monetary stability, financial institution system stability, and payment system stability. The Bank of Thailand also regularly reports that Thai financial institutions maintain strong capital positions and continue to demonstrate resilience against economic shocks.

‍

Another important consideration is Thailand’s developed banking infrastructure. The Thai banking sector comprises several internationally recognised commercial banks and is regulated by a comprehensive framework overseen by the Bank of Thailand. The central bank actively supervises financial institutions to ensure the effective functioning and stability of the financial system.

‍

Thailand’s extensive network of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) is also attractive for international groups. According to the Thai Revenue Department, Thailand has concluded tax treaties with dozens of jurisdictions and continues to expand and update its treaty network. These agreements are designed to prevent double taxation, allocate taxing rights between jurisdictions, and facilitate cross-border investment. Today, Thailand maintains tax treaty relationships with more than 60 countries, including many major economies in Europe, Asia, and North America.

‍

In addition, Thailand is generally not perceived as a traditional offshore jurisdiction. Unlike many low-tax offshore centres, Thailand is a member of the global economy with a substantial domestic market, an established regulatory framework, active tax treaty relationships, and a long-standing reputation as a regional business hub. As a result, Thai companies often face fewer reputational concerns during banking, compliance, and business partner due diligence procedures than entities incorporated in jurisdictions commonly associated with offshore structures.

‍

Nevertheless, despite these advantages, Thailand was not originally designed as a classical holding jurisdiction. Therefore, entrepreneurs considering a Thai holding company should carefully evaluate the applicable corporate ownership restrictions, tax implications, substance requirements, and international reporting obligations before implementing such a structure.

‍

2. What types of Thai companies can perform holding functions

‍

Thai legislation does not provide for a separate legal form specifically designated as a “holding company.” In practice, however, holding functions may be carried out by various types of legal entities, depending on the group structure, shareholder composition, and the nature of the assets to be held.

‍

The principal legal framework governing this area comprises the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand, which governs private limited companies, and the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999), which imposes restrictions on foreign ownership and control in certain business sectors.

‍

Private limited company as a traditional holding structure

‍

The most common vehicle used for holding structures in Thailand is the Private Limited Company. Such a company may own shares in other companies, receive dividends, manage investments, and act as the parent company of an international corporate group.

‍

However, the ability of foreign investors to utilise this structure largely depends on whether the company is considered a “foreign company” under the Foreign Business Act. As a general rule, a company in which foreign individuals or entities hold more than 49% of the share capital or control the majority of voting rights is subject to a specific regulatory regime and may only engage in activities that are not restricted by law or for which a specific authorisation has been obtained.

‍

From a practical perspective, this means that even if a holding company does not conduct active business operations, its ownership structure should still be carefully assessed in light of the requirements of the Foreign Business Act. This is particularly relevant where the holding company not only owns assets but also provides management, consulting, administrative, or support services to its subsidiaries.

‍

BOI-promoted companies as a tool for 100% foreign ownership

‍

One of the most widely used mechanisms for lawfully overcoming foreign ownership restrictions is obtaining investment promotion from the Board of Investment of Thailand (BOI).

‍

Where a project satisfies the applicable eligibility criteria, the BOI may permit 100% foreign ownership of a company, even where such ownership would otherwise be restricted under the Foreign Business Act. In addition, BOI promotion is often accompanied by tax and administrative incentives, including streamlined work permit procedures for foreign employees and various tax benefits.

‍

In practice, BOI-promoted companies are frequently used by international groups seeking to establish regional management centres or holding companies with genuine management and operational functions in Southeast Asia.

‍

Regional holding and treasury structures

‍

Particular attention should also be given to structures established for the centralised management of group companies. Historically, Thai regulations have provided mechanisms for entities operating as International Headquarters (IHQ) and Treasury Centres (TC).

‍

A Treasury Centre is generally defined as a Thai legal entity responsible for centralised financial management within a corporate group, including liquidity management, foreign exchange risk management, intra-group financing, and other treasury functions. Under the applicable framework, holding companies are expressly recognised as eligible participants within such group structures.

‍

For multinational groups, this creates an opportunity to centralise managerial and financial functions in Thailand, with a local company serving not only as the owner of corporate interests but also as the group's regional management centre.

‍

Practical risks for foreign investors

‍

When establishing a holding structure, particular attention should be paid to the provisions of the Foreign Business Act relating to nominee shareholders. The use of Thai nominees solely to satisfy local ownership requirements is generally regarded by regulators as a violation of Thai law.

‍

In recent years, Thai authorities have continued to strengthen enforcement measures against structures that may rely on nominee arrangements to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the Foreign Business Act.

‍

For this reason, international investors are generally advised to rely on legally recognised mechanisms, such as BOI promotion or obtaining a Foreign Business License, rather than creating structures with nominal local shareholders who have no genuine economic interest in the business.

‍

Accordingly, although Thai law does not provide for a dedicated holding company regime, Private Limited Companies, BOI-promoted companies, and certain regional corporate management structures may be effectively used to hold international assets and investments. Nevertheless, the success and sustainability of such structures largely depend on proper compliance with the Foreign Business Act, foreign ownership regulations, and the requirement to maintain genuine economic substance in Thailand.

‍

3. Dividend taxation and Thailand’s international tax treaty network

‍

One of the key reasons investors consider using a Thai company as a holding structure is the country’s approach to dividend taxation and its extensive network of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs). The combination of domestic tax rules and international tax treaties plays a significant role in determining the effectiveness of a holding company for owning corporate assets and receiving income from subsidiary companies.

‍

Under the Thai Revenue Code, dividends received by a Thai company from another Thai company may, subject to certain conditions, be partially or fully exempt from corporate income tax. The most common mechanism is the participation exemption regime, which allows a substantial portion of dividend income to be excluded from the taxable base, provided that specific ownership and shareholding period requirements are satisfied. This approach is intended to prevent multiple layers of taxation on the same profits within a corporate group.

‍

At the same time, dividends distributed by a Thai company to non-residents are generally subject to withholding tax. The standard withholding tax rate is 10%, unless a lower rate is available under an applicable Double Taxation Agreement. As a result, the analysis of Thailand’s treaty network and the potential application of reduced withholding tax rates becomes particularly important for multinational corporate groups.

‍

Thailand currently maintains one of the most extensive tax treaty networks in Southeast Asia, with effective agreements covering more than 60 jurisdictions. These treaties regulate the taxation of dividends, interest, royalties, business profits, and other categories of cross-border income, and provide mechanisms to eliminate double taxation.

‍

For international groups, this creates several practical advantages. In particular, the use of a Thai holding company may facilitate tax-efficient receipt of dividends from foreign subsidiaries and their subsequent distribution to ultimate shareholders. However, the effectiveness of such a structure will always depend on the specific provisions of the relevant tax treaty, the group's ownership structure, and the tax rules applicable in the jurisdiction where the beneficial owner is tax-resident.

‍

Particular attention should be paid to Thailand’s treaty relationships with jurisdictions that are commonly used in international corporate structuring, including Ukraine, Poland, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. In each case, different rules may apply regarding withholding tax rates, tax residency requirements, and access to treaty benefits. Furthermore, companies must take into account beneficial ownership requirements, which are increasingly scrutinised by tax authorities worldwide.

‍

Accordingly, the mere existence of an extensive DTA network and dividend exemption mechanisms does not automatically guarantee tax efficiency. In practice, the successful use of a Thai company as a holding vehicle requires a comprehensive assessment of Thailand’s domestic tax legislation, the relevant international tax treaties, and the tax rules applicable in the ultimate beneficial owner's jurisdiction.

‍

4. Tax residency of a Thai company: practical considerations for international holding structures

‍

When using a Thai company as a holding structure, investors often focus on corporate governance, dividend taxation, and access to international tax treaties. However, one of the most important yet frequently underestimated issues is determining the company’s tax residency. Tax residency directly affects the availability of treaty benefits, the taxation of corporate income, and the potential risk of disputes with foreign tax authorities.

‍

Under the general approach applied by the Thai tax authorities, a company is considered a Thai tax resident if it is incorporated under Thai law. For multinational corporate groups, however, incorporation alone is often not sufficient. Many jurisdictions apply additional tests when determining corporate tax residency, including the concept of the Place of Effective Management (POEM), which focuses on the location where key management and commercial decisions are actually made.

‍

In practice, tax authorities may look beyond the place of incorporation and examine how a company is genuinely managed. For this reason, Thai holding structures should carefully consider where decisions relating to investment activities, dividend distributions, acquisitions and disposals of assets, subsidiary financing, and overall group strategy are made.

‍

One of the key factors in this analysis is the role of the company’s directors. Where a director or the majority of board members are permanently located outside Thailand and make all significant decisions from another jurisdiction, this may provide grounds for that jurisdiction’s tax authorities to argue that the company is tax resident there. This issue is particularly relevant to structures in which the director of the Thai company resides abroad and manages the company remotely.

‍

For holding companies, it is also important to maintain documentary evidence demonstrating genuine management activities in Thailand. Such evidence may include board meeting minutes prepared in Thailand, corporate documents executed within Thailand, a local office, employees, accounting support, and other elements of economic substance. Although Thai law does not impose a separate substance regime specifically for holding companies, these factors are frequently examined when applying tax treaty benefits and assessing eligibility for tax relief.

‍

Particular attention should be paid to the risk of dual tax residency. This situation may arise when Thailand treats a company as a tax resident based on its incorporation, while another jurisdiction considers the same company its tax resident based on the place of effective management or other domestic law criteria. As a result, the company may become subject to the tax jurisdiction of two different countries simultaneously.

‍

Accordingly, for an international holding structure, incorporating a company in Thailand is only the first step. To minimise tax risks and secure access to treaty benefits, particular attention should be given to the company’s actual management activities, the role of its directors, and the maintenance of sufficient economic substance within Thailand.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Thailand can serve as an effective jurisdiction for establishing a holding company, particularly for businesses that maintain assets, conduct operations, or hold strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Its developed banking sector, extensive network of Double Taxation Agreements, and the availability of BOI promotion schemes create attractive opportunities for international corporate structuring.

‍

At the same time, Thailand is not a traditional holding jurisdiction comparable to Singapore, Hong Kong, or the United Arab Emirates. The use of a Thai company as a holding vehicle requires careful consideration of the Foreign Business Act, foreign ownership restrictions, dividend taxation rules, and tax residency and economic substance requirements.

‍

From a practical business perspective, a Thai company should not be viewed solely as a tax optimisation tool. Tax authorities and financial institutions increasingly assess the actual substance of a company’s activities rather than its legal form alone. Therefore, for long-term stability, businesses should ensure that the company is genuinely managed from Thailand, properly document corporate decision-making processes, maintain an adequate level of economic substance, and analyse in advance the implications of applicable tax treaties and Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules in the owner’s country of residence.

‍

For investors seeking to use a Thai company as a platform for managing Asian assets or regional subsidiaries, Thailand may represent an efficient and legally sustainable solution. However, before implementing such a structure, it is advisable to conduct a comprehensive legal and tax review not only of Thai legislation but also of the regulatory requirements applicable in all jurisdictions involved within the corporate group.

‍

Connect with TUCC

‍

Stay updated with the latest market insights, legal guides, and networking opportunities within the Thai-Ukrainian business corridor.

‍

Website: thaiukraine.org

‍

Email: info@thaiukraine.org

‍

LinkedIn: Thai-Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce