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

November 21, 2013

Thailand’s Competitive Regional Operating Headquarters Regime

Informed Counsel

In Thailand, the government grants special privileges to certain types of business entities in order to incentivize their creation. One such type of business entity is the Regional Operating Headquarters (ROH), which benefits from a number of tax incentives.

There are, however, some requirements that must be met before a company can be categorized as an ROH. First, the company must be incorporated in Thailand. Second, the company must conduct business in Thailand by providing support services to its associated companies and/or branches, wherever they may be.

Two Schemes of ROH

ROHs are allowed to provide managerial, technical, or supporting services to their associated enterprises or their domestic or overseas branches. At present, there are two schemes of ROH. ROHs under both schemes are permitted to provide the same scope of services, but merely the requirements and tax benefits will differ.

ROHs can be divided between the 2002 scheme (known as the “old scheme”) and the 2010 scheme (known as the “new scheme”). The old scheme was relatively unsuccessful due to its onerous requirements, which forced prospective ROH companies to provide support services to their associated companies and/or branches in at least three countries in their first fiscal year. Additionally, the incentives under the old scheme paled in comparison to other jurisdictions in the region, such as Singapore and Hong Kong.

Therefore, in light of these drawbacks, a revised, new scheme of ROH was implemented by the Cabinet in 2010, with more favorable requirements and incentives. For example, the revised requirements allow prospective ROH companies to meet the above support-services requirement within five fiscal years. Additionally, as shown in the table below, corporate income tax on profits from services provided to foreign affiliates was 10% under the old scheme, but is exempted under the new scheme.

However, while some requirements under the new scheme are more flexible than before, additional requirements have been added to the new scheme, such as the operating expense requirement, which forces the ROH to spend at least THB 15 million annually. Additional requirements include the skilled employee provision, whereby at least 75% of the total employees of the ROH must have specified skills or knowledge from the third accounting period onward. Also, tax incentives under the new scheme are limited to 10 years, whereas under the old scheme, there was no time limit. But when comparing the old and new schemes, the new scheme provides slightly better tax incentives and removes some difficult criteria, even though it introduces some new conditions that a company needs to fulfill.

From 2002 to 2010, it was reported that only around 80 companies were registered as an ROH in Thailand. To date, the number stands at 122 companies. This is very low compared to countries such as Malaysia and Singapore that have around 600 and 1600 companies registered respectively. This large discrepancy may be due to some incentives being unable to compete with those offered by other countries in the region, such as the out-out transaction of the affiliates still not being exempt from tax in Thailand.

Does Thailand Have What It Takes to Be an ROH Hub?

In terms of its business environment, Thailand has many attractive qualities such as its strategic location, skilled labor force, and relatively low wages and other operating costs. Situated in the center of Southeast Asia, Thailand can serve as a regional distribution center due to the government’s long-term plans to develop the country’s transport infrastructure, including its roads and railways. The country’s information technology infrastructure, while still lagging behind some of its neighbors, is also continuing to improve.

Although the tax incentives offered by Thailand’s ROH regime are not as attractive as those offered by some other countries in the region, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has introduced a number of other incentives alongside the ROH system to attract foreign investors. For example, certain businesses promoted by the BOI will be granted tax exemptions, tariff exemptions, permission to own land, permission to establish a foreign majority-owned company, or permission to conduct businesses usually reserved only for Thai nationals. Also, the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT) offers similar privileges to companies with facilities situated in an industrial area run by the IEAT, including import duty and VAT exemption on machines and equipment, as well as components that are necessary for the manufacture of goods or for commerce, including any material to be used for the construction, assembly, or installation of a factory or building. Materials imported for manufacturing goods or for commerce are also exempted from import duty and VAT. Moreover, products, by-products, and any other things arising from the manufacture within the IEAT area will be exempted from export duty and VAT.

Therefore, the BOI and IEAT incentives can efficiently support foreign businesses in Thailand in fields that are not covered by the ROH regime.

In sum, Thailand’s ROH regime is continuing to evolve in an attempt to position the country as an attractive base for regional operations. With the ROH scheme complemented by the array of incentives offered under other programs, foreign investors can view Thailand as a viable option to serve as a base for their business in Southeast Asia.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
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