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​ 

December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD), through its Office of Central Company and Partnership Registration, has released multiple draft orders for public consultation until December 12, 2025. These draft orders aim to strengthen the business registration process, with a focus on the requirements for establishing and amending the principal office address of a partnership or limited company, verification of authorized signatories, and measures to identify and prevent registrations involving persons linked to suspicious or high-risk activities. The draft orders’ proposed requirements are outlined below. Principal Office Verification The principal office address of a partnership or limited company, including house registration code, house number, full address details, and building name, must be fully aligned with the civil registry. The registrar will strictly verify this before accepting any registration or amendment. If the address used for registration is already registered for at least five other companies, the company must submit a consent letter from the person authorized to allow use of the principal office, along with supporting documents proving the right to use the address. Signatory Certification Compliance Duties Persons certifying directors’ signatures on registration forms are responsible for verifying their identities, maintaining up-to-date information, and complying with the requirements of the DBD’s Biz Regist digital registration system. Certain supporting documents proving the qualifications of certifying persons are also required, with some exceptions for specific professional roles. Identity and qualification verification must be renewed upon the completion of one year from the date of registration as a certifying person, or if the certification credentials expire before the one-year period ends, in accordance with the verification requirements. Verification of Suspicious Parties Any partner, shareholder, or director linked to a predicate offense will be required to meet with the registrar in person for further verification steps. For all parties related to a company
Read More