You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 6, 2019

BOI Merges Two Promoted Activities into New International Business Centers

Informed Counsel

On December 11, 2018, the Board of Investment (BOI) issued two new announcements: one canceling the International Headquarters (IHQ) and International Trade Centers (ITC) categories of activities for investment promotion, and one introducing a new category called International Business Centers (IBCs). The IHQ and ITC categories had existed in some form for almost a decade (previously existing in slightly different forms as Regional Operating Headquarters and International Procurement Offices, until they were canceled and replaced by the IHQ and ITC categories for applications submitted in 2015 onward).   

This change is intended to make investment in Thailand more attractive to the global community by implementing new international tax standards under the OECD’s Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which Thailand acceded to in June 2017. The framework encourages countries to adjust their tax measures to eradicate inadvertent “gaps and mismatches” in the tax regimes of different jurisdictions, effectively harmonizing tax rules between member jurisdictions. This is intended to prevent exploitation of these “gaps and mismatches,” which have long been used by savvy international tax structures that move capital from one jurisdiction to another, benefiting from favorable tax regimes along the way.    

Although the new IBC category is, in principle, merely a combination of the old IHQ and ITC schemes, in practice there are some key new changes that investors—especially those familiar with the old IHQ and ITC schemes—should be aware of.

Eligible Activities for an IBC

Registered Capital   

As with the IHQ and ITC, the paid-up registered capital of an IBC must be at least THB 10 million.

Employment   

Unlike the IHQ and ITC, an IBC is required to have at least 10 skilled employees. A limited exception is available to IBCs that only provide treasury center services to affiliated enterprises, for which the requirement is reduced to five. This is a new requirement and was not included under the IHQ or ITC categories.

IBC Privileges – Board of Investment   

The BOI privileges available to IBCs are generally the same as those under the IHQ and ITC schemes, and are mostly non-tax incentive privileges, such as the right to operate a business with a foreign majority structure, favorable work permit terms for foreign expatriates, the right to own land, etc.

Companies that apply for IBC privileges also enjoy an import duty exemption for machines imported for use in research and development or for training purposes. How- ever, a privilege for import duty on raw or essential materials used in manufacturing of exported products would not be available for IBCs, nor would merit-based privileges.

IBC Privileges – Revenue Department   

It is also possible for IBCs to benefit from tax incentives, although to do so they must notify the Revenue Department separately from their application with the BOI. To qualify as an IBC at the Revenue Department, in addition to meeting the requirements of the BOI, the applicant must spend at least THB 60 million, in each accounting period, to recipients in Thailand, and have paid-up capital of THB 10 million at the end of each accounting period. The applicant must also comply with any other criteria, methods, and conditions stipulated by the Director-General of the Revenue Department in the future.

If an IBC meets these requirements, it will be entitled to the following tax privileges:

  • Reduced corporate income tax rate of 8%, 5%, or 3%, based on expenditures in Thailand of at least THB 60 million, THB 300 million, and THB 600 million, respectively;
  • Exemption from corporate income tax on dividends received from an affiliate;
  • Exemption from specific business tax for income received from treasury center functions;
  • Reduced personal income tax rate of 15% for expatriates working for an IBC; and
  • Exemption from withholding tax for offshore affiliates receiving dividends or interest paid from an IBC.

Impact on Existing IHQs and ITCs   

Companies currently promoted under the BOI’s IHQ and ITC schemes will not be affected, and they will continue to enjoy the incentives under the BOI investment certificate granted to them. Those who registered with the Revenue Department as Regional Operating Headquarters (ROH1 and ROH2), IHQs, or ITCs may opt to convert to IBCs if they are qualified and meet the conditions, or continue to enjoy the tax incentives laid out by the precedent notification or announcement until the end of the relevant timeframe.   

Overall, the new IBC may be less attractive than the precedent ROH, IHQ, and ITC frameworks as a result of the minimum expenditure requirements and other conditions. However, a foreign business license may still be a favorable option for companies that fail to meet the new requirements, and the benefit of harmonization between the Thai investment framework and the international community is likely to promote Thailand as a destination for international offices and domestic affiliates of international corporations. While the new framework may be inconvenient for some, the overall effect on Thailand as an FDI location will likely be beneficial.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education