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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More