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

February 22, 2012

IP Holding Vehicles: Singapore vs. Hong Kong

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation has become more urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the AEC aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states gearing up toward increased IP generation and with further commitments to global IP regimes, the region may soon look to sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures.

IP Holding Companies

Recognizing the importance of securing IP rights in the upcoming era of AEC, a trend has developed among ASEAN-based companies to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, etc. in return for royalties or license fees. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP Holding Companies.

IP Holding Companies are popular because they can help corporations to minimize tax, gain tax benefits/concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio in order to see it as an income generator.

Tax and Deciding on Your IP Holding Company

Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies select a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction in which to establish their IP Holding Company that is close to their home country.

The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double tax treaties are key criteria in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as a security for future borrowings or if they are to be included in the parent company’s asset sheets prior to a public listing, having those IP assets in a respected, transparent country is always beneficial. Also, depending on whether any R&D might be planned, many countries have attractive tax benefits for such activities as a way to encourage local innovation and technology transfer into the country. If the parent has other business operations in the selected country, it very well may be that such items as development or operational costs, company losses in respect of certain activities, or amortization schemes may be available to offset against profit-generating activities.

Singapore

In the past few years, Singapore has emerged as one of the most IP-focused jurisdictions in Asia, with the government going to great lengths to encourage the transfer of technology and IP to the country. Generally, the IP tax incentives offered in Singapore apply to a wide range of qualifying expenditure incurred on qualifying activities, such as R&D done in Singapore (with additional possible deductions on some R&D done outside Singapore), registration of IP rights, acquisition of IP rights, investments in automation, training of employees, and investments in design done in Singapore.

One of the main factors why Singapore is fast becoming Asia’s go-to place to hold a company’s IP is the fact that Singapore has a long-standing and impressive double taxation treaty network with about 60 countries. Coupled with a comparatively low prevailing corporate tax rate of 17%, most businesses find Singapore an excellent location to house IP.

In making a decision regarding whether to remove an IP portfolio from Thailand to a more tax-efficient jurisdiction, it is important to study the potential income streams that the IP holder will receive from potential users/licensors of the IP, as well as the associated tax implications. The issue here is withholding tax. It will be expected that the tax regimes in most jurisdictions will impose withholding tax on the income streams derived from the IP exploitation (as would be the case here in Thailand). Withholding tax will be reduced under double taxation agreements between Singapore and those countries from where the royalties will be paid.

Hong Kong

Unlike offshore financial centers, Hong Kong is not a zero-tax jurisdiction. However, its 17.5% profits tax rate is relatively low compared to the rates of other jurisdictions in Asia.

Hong Kong taxes residents and non-residents only to the extent that they derive Hong Kong–sourced income from the carrying on of trade, profession, or business in Hong Kong. This territorial tax regime provides an opportunity to design the IP holding structure to reduce exposure to Hong Kong profits tax.

Hong Kong’s profits tax system taxes royalty payments received by a Hong Kong company only if (1) the Hong Kong company is considered to carry on trade or business in Hong Kong, and (2) the royalty income is considered to arise in, or be derived from, that Hong Kong trade or business. If properly structured, Hong Kong’s territorial tax regime can provide favorable tax planning opportunities.

Hong Kong generally does not impose withholding tax on outbound payments. But for outbound royalty payments, Hong Kong imposes a withholding tax if the amount paid is treated as income that is chargeable to Hong profits tax under the criteria described above. Otherwise, no withholding tax is imposed.

If withholding tax is chargeable on royalty payments from Hong Kong, the payment would attract a withholding tax of either 5.5% or 17.5%. The higher rate applies if the royalty payment is made to an associate and the intellectual property has been owned, or partly owned, by a person carrying on business in Hong Kong.

Outlook

IP Holding Companies bring together three complex legal fields: (1) IP, (2) tax, and (3) corporate structuring and insolvency. Transactions are cross-border in nature, thus adding to the complexity. But with proper investigation and planning, synergies do arise and IP holding vehicles can offer significant advantages when an IP owner seeks to streamline royalty and licensing intakes from multiple licensees.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More