OLN Law

Test Blog

CEDB Released a Public Consultation Paper on Updating Hong Kong’s Copyright Regime on 24 November

by

The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of the Government of Hong Kong just released on 24 November 2021 a public consultation paper on updating Hong Kong’s copyright regime. 

This is brilliant news to copyright owners and fingers crossed with the passage of the new legislation! If you may wonder the meaning behind, the current Copyright Ordinance enacted in 1997 is considered badly obsolete and can barely cope with the rapid advancements and innovations in technology. Despite the Government’s deliberation to update the legislation initiated since 2006 with public consultations conducted,  two serious attempts to amend the Ordinance (The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 and The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014) did not succeed due to filibustering by some members asserting the view that freedom of creativity or expression could possibly be compromised under the proposed legislative provisions.

The consultation paper described the legislative proposals in the 2014 Bill to be the result of years of deliberations of the Government, Legislative Council, copyright owners, online service providers and copyright users, representing the consensus and balance of interests of different stakeholders to enhance protection for copyright in the digital environment and combat large scale online piracy – which should be materialized without further delay.  

Key legislative proposals based on the 2014 Bill

A. Communication right – introduction of technology-neutral exclusive communication right for copyright owners to communicate their works to the public through any mode of electronic transmission in line with the international practice

B. Criminal liability – criminal sanctions introduced against infringers making unauthorised communication of copyright works to the public for profit or reward and with prejudice caused to the copyright owners

C. New copyright exceptions – for the education sector, libraries, museums, archives, temporary reproduction of copyright works by OSPs, and media shifting; and new fair dealing exceptions for the purposes of parody, satire, caricature and pastiche, commenting on current events, and use of quotation to facilitate expression of opinions or discussions in the online and traditional environment

D. Safe harbour provisions – limiting OSP’s liability for copyright infringements on their service platforms caused by subscribers as an incentive for OSPs to cooperate with copyright owners to combat online piracy

E. Additional damages in civil cases – empowering the court to award additional damages according to the circumstances with additional factors to assess including the unreasonable conduct of an infringer and likelihood of widespread circulation of infringing copies

Issues inviting public views

1. Should Hong Kong continue to maintain the current exhaustive approach by setting out all copyright exceptions based on specific purposes or circumstances?

2. Should Hong Kong introduce provisions to restrict the use of contracts to exclude or limit the application of statutory copyright exceptions? (currently is non-interference approach to contractual arrangements between owners and users)

3. Should Hong Kong introduce specific provisions to govern illicit streaming devices used for accessing unauthorized contents on the Internet, including set-top boxes and Apps? (Government’s current position is not to)

4. Should Hong Kong introduce a copyright-specific judicial site blocking mechanism? (Government’s current position is not to)

Issues to be considered for future legislative amendments
  • Extension of copyright term of protection
  • Introduction of specific copyright exceptions for text and data mining
  • AI and copyright

The consultation period is 3 months from 24 November 2021. We are more than happy to convey your thoughts to the Bureau or share our thoughts on issues you may have on copyright protection or circumstances that may put you at the risk of infringing someone else’s copyright.

Family Offices in Hong Kong: Tax Concessions, Re-domiciliation, and Proposed 2026 Reform

by

Hong Kong stands out as a premier destination for family offices, offering a unique blend of business-friendly policies, robust legal frameworks, and strategic advantages.

1. Business-Friendly Tax Regime

Hong Kong imposes low and simple taxes with no VAT, capital gains, dividend, or inheritance taxes. As at June 2026, Hong Kong holds 58 comprehensive avoidance of double taxation agreements, with another 16 under negotiation.

2. Robust Legal System

The city operates under a Common Law framework, providing strong rule of law and investor protection.

3. World-Class Financial Services

As a leading global hub for private banking, asset management and professional advisory services, Hong Kong offers tailored solutions for HNWIs and families.

4. Skilled Talent Pool

Hong Kong is home to a highly skilled, multilingual workforce.

5. Government Support

The Hong Kong government actively supports family offices through initiatives like FamilyOfficeHK under InvestHK and tax concessions for single-family offices.

6. Strategic Location

Hong Kong serves as a gateway to Mainland China and the Asia-Pacific region.

Re-Domiciliation of Family Offices

As of May 2025, non-Hong Kong incorporated companies, including family offices, can re-domicile to Hong Kong under a new statutory regime. This allows family offices to relocate their operations while retaining their legal identity and continuity. The streamlined process involves an application to the Companies Registry, with approvals typically granted within two weeks.

Key highlights:

  • The family office retains all assets, rights, obligations, and legal standing post-transfer
  • The family office obtains the same rights as family offices incorporated in Hong Kong
  • A fixed application fee (HK$6,050 electronically / HK$6,725 in hard copy)
  • Upon approval, the family office becomes a Hong Kong-incorporated entity and must deregister in its original jurisdiction within 120 days

Regulatory and tax implications:

  • Tax continuity is preserved – profits tax applies only to income sourced in Hong Kong
  • Relief and credits are available to avoid double taxation during transition
  • No stamp duty is triggered by re-domiciliation

Tax Concessions for Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles (FIHVs)

Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles) Ordinance 2023 introduced a 0% profits tax concession for qualifying FIHVs.

Who qualifies:

  • ≥ 95% beneficial interest held, in aggregate, by one or more than one member of the family (charities ≤ 25%, outsiders ≤ 5%)
  • Normally managed and controlled in Hong Kong, outsourcing is permissible
  • Holds ≥ HK$240 million specified assets (shares, stocks, bonds, debentures, etc.)
  • Carries on all core income-generating activities in Hong Kong with ≥ 2 qualified full-time staff and ≥ HK$2 million local operating spend
  • Not a business undertaking

What’s covered:

  • Transaction in specified assets (qualifying transactions): trading securities, FX, private-company shares, derivatives, etc.
  • Transactions incidental to the carrying out of qualifying transactions (receipts capped at 5% of total receipts)

Practical steps to obtain tax certainty:

  1. Map ownership to confirm ≥ 95% family control (with any charity/unrelated shareholding within limits).
  2. Elect for the concession – once, in writing – before filing the first relevant tax return.
  3. Verify substance annually: head-count, spend, and asset NAV.
  4. Monitor transactions for the 5% incidental threshold and private-company anti-avoidance triggers.
  5. Maintain documentation (family tree, group chart, management agreements, NAV calculations) ready for audit or advance-ruling submission.

Legislative Update: 2026 Preferential Tax Regimes Bill

  • On 12 June 2026, Hong Kong gazetted the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Preferential Tax Regimes for Funds, Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles and Carried Interest) Bill 2026.
  • The Bill proposes to expand Hong Kong’s preferential tax regimes for:
    • funds;
    • Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles;
    • carried interest.
  • Expanded qualifying asset classes
    • The 0% profits tax concession would be expanded to cover additional asset classes, including:
      • digital assets;
      • gold and other precious metals;
      • specified commodities;
      • carbon credits;
      • private credit.
  • Broader eligible fund structures
    • Eligibility would be extended beyond traditional open-ended fund structures to include:
      • certain “fund-of-one” structures;
      • wholly-owned investment vehicles;
      • pension funds;
      • charity funds.
  • Carried interest tax relief
    • The Bill would enhance tax relief for performance-linked returns, including carried interest, for private equity and venture capital funds.
    • This is intended to strengthen Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a private capital and asset management hub.
  • Removal of 5% incidental threshold
    • The existing draft memo states that the concession covers transactions in specified assets and that receipts from incidental transactions are capped at 5% of total receipts.
    • The Bill proposes to remove this 5% incidental threshold, giving family offices greater flexibility in treasury, cash management and interest-earning activities.
  • Interaction with non-tax incentives
    • Hong Kong’s Capital Investment Entrant Scheme provides a residency pathway for individuals making a qualifying HK$30 million investment, including at least HK$3 million into a government-managed investment portfolio.
    • The scheme may also allow family members to be included, facilitating relocation alongside the family office structure.

Anti-Avoidance Measures

Hong Kong has implemented anti-avoidance measures to ensure that tax concessions are not abused. These measures include tests for immovable property, holding periods, and control and short-term asset tests.

Anti-Avoidance Measures

With its favourable tax regime, robust legal system, world-class financial services, skilled talent pool, and strong government support, Hong Kong is the ideal location for family office. Whether you are looking to establish a new family office or re-domicile an existing one, Hong Kong offers the perfect environment for long-term wealth planning and growth. Please contact us for further information.

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Oldham, Li & Nie Launches Family Office Services to Support International Families in Hong Kong

by

Oldham, Li & Nie (OLN) is pleased to announce the launch of its dedicated Family Office Services practice, expanding its capabilities in private wealth, trusts, succession planning, and cross-border structuring to meet the growing needs of international families.

Hong Kong has established itself as a premier destination for family offices, underpinned by common law system, attractive tax regime, and government-backed initiatives such as FamilyOfficeHK, tax concessions for Family-Owned Investment Holding Vehicles (FIHVs), and the New Capital Investment Entrant Scheme (New CIES). In 2026, the city has become the world’s largest cross-boundary wealth management centre, according to the Boston Consulting Groupi, reinforcing its appeal for global wealth planning,

OLN’s new Family Office Services practice will provide integrated legal support across the following areas:

  • Family Office Establishment and Structuring
  • Wills and Succession Planning
  • Trusts and Asset Protection
  • Complex Estate Planning
  • Cross-Border Tax and Structuring Advice, including the US and France elements
  • International Family Office Coordination
  • Ongoing Accounting and Reporting
  • Outsourced CFO and COO Support
  • Strategic Business Advisory Services Tailored to Family Offices and Private Investment Structures
  • Litigation Support
  • Immigration Law

“Hong Kong offers an exceptional platform for families seeking to build a lasting presence in Asia while staying closely connected to opportunities around the world,” said Gordon Oldham, Senior Partner. “At OLN, we understand that every family’s journey is unique. Drawing on our longstanding strengths across private client, tax and corporate services – as well as our dedicated US tax and French practices – we take a truly personal approach. We work alongside our clients to create tailored structures that not only protect and grow their wealth, but also reflect their values, aspirations and long-term legacy.”

The firm’s Family Office Services practice adopts a multidisciplinary approach, working closely with third-party fund managers and financial advisers.

For more information about the Family Office Services practice, please visit https://oln-law.com/practice-areas/family-office-services/

i https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202605/27/P2026052700809.htm

Hidden US Tax Risks for Hong Kong Families – What Happens If Your Child Is a US Green Card Holder/ US Citizen?

by

Many Hong Kong families today have children who were born in the United States or educated there and have become US citizens. At the same time, it is increasingly common for Hong Kong individuals to invest in US listed stocks given the depth and liquidity of the US market. What is often overlooked is that these two factors – US‑citizen family members and US investments – can create significant and unexpected US tax exposure.

A common misconception is that “US tax does not apply because I do not live in the US.” In reality, the combination of US‑citizen beneficiaries and US‑situs investments can bring Hong Kong families within the US tax net in ways that are not immediately obvious.

To start with, the United States operates a fundamentally different tax system than that of Hong Kong, in the sense that a US citizen is subject to tax on worldwide income regardless of where they live. As a result, a child who is a US citizen will have ongoing US tax and reporting obligations even if he or she has no intention of living in the US long term.

Separately, many Hong Kong individuals assume that because they are not US residents, US tax is not relevant to their succession planning while in fact US estate tax may kick in because such individual may have assets which are treated as “US‑situated assets”. A typical example would be US shares (including US‑listed ETFs). This gives rise to a common but frequently misunderstood risk: even if the parent is not a US person, holding US stocks directly can expose their estate to US estate tax.

This is particularly significant because the estate tax regime for non‑US individuals is extremely strict. The exemption is only USD 60,000, and any excess may be taxed at rates of up to 40%. Many Hong Kong investors holding US shares through brokerage accounts (even if such account sits in Hong Kong) may therefore have an unintended US estate tax exposure.

The risk becomes more acute in a typical family scenario – where parents hold US investments, and upon their passing, those assets are intended to pass to a US‑citizen child. Without proper structuring, US estate tax may be imposed at the estate level before any distribution is made, and the child may also face ongoing US tax and reporting obligations thereafter.

To understand more, please discuss with our professional team:

Anna W.K. Chan, Partner, Head of Tax & Private Client
Email: anna.chan@oln-law.com

Joshua D. Maxwell, US Tax Attorney
Email: joshua.maxwell@oln-law.com

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

香港家庭隐藏的美国税务风险 —— 如果您的子女持有美国绿卡或美国公民身份，将有何影响？

by

现今许多香港家庭的子女均在美国出生或在当地接受教育，并已成为美国公民。与此同时，鉴于美国市场的深度与流动性，香港个人投资者投资美股已日趋普遍。然而，大众往往忽略了这两个因素 —— 拥有美国公民身份的家庭成员以及持有美国本土资产 —— 可能会带来重大且意料之外的美国税务责任。

坊间常见的误解是：“因为我不居住在美国，所以美国税务与我无关。”然而在现实中，若将“美国公民受益人”与“位于美国境内的资产（即美国 situs 资产）”两者结合，香港家庭便可能会以一种隐蔽的方式被纳入美国的税务网络中。

首先，美国实行一套与香港截然不同的税务体制。美国公民不论居住于何处，均须就其全球收入（Worldwide income）申报并缴纳所得税。因此，身为美国公民的子女，即使无意长期在美国居住，仍须承担持续性的美国税务申报及纳税义务。

另一方面，许多香港人士以为自己并非美国居民，因此美国税务与其遗产继承规划无关。但事实上，由于该等人士可能持有被视为“位于美国境内的资产”，因而可能触发美国遗产税（US estate tax）。最典型的例子便是美国公司股票（包括在美国上市的交易所买卖基金，即 ETFs）。这衍生出一个普遍却经常被误解的风险：即使父母并非美国税务居民（Non-US person），直接持有美股亦会导致其遗产面临被征收美国遗产税的风险。

鉴于美国针对非美国居民的遗产税制度极为严苛，此风险显得尤为重大。非美国居民的遗产税免税额仅为 60,000 美元，任何高于此限额的应课税遗产，其税率最高可达 40%。因此，许多通过证券账户（即使该账户设于香港）持有美股的香港投资者，都可能在不经意间产生了美国遗产税的潜在风险。

在常见的家庭场景中，此风险更为严峻 —— 即父母持有美国境内投资，并打算在百年归老后将该等资产传承予拥有美国公民身份的子女。若缺乏妥善的结构规划，在进行任何遗产分配之前，该等资产可能已在遗产层面被征收美国遗产税；而子女在此后亦可能须面临持续的美国税务申报与纳税义务。 如欲了解更多详情，欢迎与我们的专业团队联络探讨：

陈韵祺 – 合伙人，税务咨询及私人客户部门主管
电邮: anna.chan@oln-law.com

Joshua Maxwell, US Tax Attorney
电邮: Joshua.maxwell@oln-law.com

免责声明：本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不得诠释为香港法律建议或向任何人提供的任何与此相关的法律建议。对于任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何损失和/或损害，高李严律师行不承担任何责任。

Filed Under: oln

香港家庭隐藏的美国税务风险 — 如果您的子女持有美国绿卡或美国公民身份，将有何影响？

by

现今许多香港家庭的子女均在美国出生或在当地接受教育，并已成为美国公民。与此同时，鉴于美国市场的深度与流动性，香港个人投资者投资美股已日趋普遍。然而，大众往往忽略了这两个因素 — 拥有美国公民身份的家庭成员以及持有美国本土资产 ，可能会带来重大且意料之外的美国税务责任。

坊间常见的误解是：“因为我不居住在美国，所以美国税务与我无关。”然而在现实中，若将“美国公民受益人”与“位于美国境内的资产（即美国 situs 资产）”两者结合，香港家庭便可能会以一种隐蔽的方式被纳入美国的税务网络中。

首先，美国实行一套与香港截然不同的税务体制。美国公民不论居住于何处，均须就其全球收入（Worldwide income）申报并缴纳所得税。因此，身为美国公民的子女，即使无意长期在美国居住，仍须承担持续性的美国税务申报及纳税义务。

另一方面，许多香港人士以为自己并非美国居民，因此美国税务与其遗产继承规划无关。但事实上，由于该等人士可能持有被视为“位于美国境内的资产”，因而可能触发美国遗产税（US estate tax）。最典型的例子便是美国公司股票（包括在美国上市的交易所买卖基金，即 ETFs）。这衍生出一个普遍却经常被误解的风险：即使父母并非美国税务居民（Non-US person），直接持有美股亦会导致其遗产面临被征收美国遗产税的风险。

鉴于美国针对非美国居民的遗产税制度极为严苛，此风险显得尤为重大。非美国居民的遗产税免税额仅为 60,000 美元，任何高于此限额的应课税遗产，其税率最高可达 40%。因此，许多通过证券账户（即使该账户设于香港）持有美股的香港投资者，都可能在不经意间产生了美国遗产税的潜在风险。

在常见的家庭场景中，此风险更为严峻 —— 即父母持有美国境内投资，并打算在百年归老后将该等资产传承予拥有美国公民身份的子女。若缺乏妥善的结构规划，在进行任何遗产分配之前，该等资产可能已在遗产层面被征收美国遗产税；而子女在此后亦可能须面临持续的美国税务申报与纳税义务。

如欲了解更多详情，欢迎与我们的专业团队联络探讨：

陈韵祺 – 合伙人，税务咨询及私人客户部门主管
电邮: anna.chan@oln-law.com

Joshua Maxwell, US Tax Attorney
电邮: Joshua.maxwell@oln-law.com

免责声明：本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不得诠释为香港法律建议或向任何人提供的任何与此相关的法律建议。对于任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何损失和/或损害，高李严律师行不承担任何责任。

A Review of In Vitro Fertilisation Regulations in Different Jurisdictions

by

(This article was published in the February 2025 Issue of the Hong Kong Lawyer)

In vitro fertilisation (“IVF”) has emerged as a cornerstone of assisted reproductive technology, offering hope to same sex couples, single people, couples facing infertility and/or mothers in high-risk pregnancies. With advancements in medical science, the procedure has become more accessible with increasingly higher success rates, yet the legal frameworks governing IVF vary significantly around the world. This article examines the legal landscape of IVF across a number of jurisdictions, highlighting key regulations, ethical considerations as well as societal implications.

The Rising Importance of IVF

The dawn of IVF began in 1978 with the birth of Louise Joy Brown, the world’s first “test-tube baby”. By 1982 when Brown’s sister was born, the latter was already the world’s 40th IVF baby. Since then, the procedure has evolved, becoming a common solution for men and women struggling to become parents due to various factors as diverse as age, medical conditions and/or lifestyle choices. Since 2001, the World Health Organization has recognised infertility as a significant global health issue affecting millions of people, estimating that worldwide, one of every six persons of reproductive age will experience fertility at some point in their lives; it emphasises the need for equitable access to reproductive technologies.

Jurisdictional Variations and Legal Considerations

Australia

Australia has established a comprehensive legal framework for IVF through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 in New South Wales allows IVF for both medical and social reasons. Publicly supported and private IVF clinics may impose their own age limits on IVF patients. One of the stated objects of the legislation is to prevent the commercialisation of human reproduction – hence the sale of human embryos is not legal in Australia. If donated embryos are used in IVF, they must be donated as altruistic gifts, although the payment of reasonable expenses is allowed. Consent is also a critical component, requiring both partners to agree on the use of their gametes. In New South Wales, providers must seek the approval of the Secretary of the Ministry of Health if embryos over 15 years old are to be used.

Canada

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (“AHRA”) regulates IVF practices, emphasizing patient safety and informed consent. The Act permits IVF for medical reasons, while social IVF is less clearly defined. Storage of embryos is limited to a maximum of 10 years and public healthcare coverage for IVF varies by province, with some offering partial public funding or tax credits for IVF treatments. In the province of Ontario, for example, the government provides treatment for one IVF cycle for one patient per lifetime, provided the patient is a resident of Ontario under 43 years of age. The AHRA prohibits the sale of ova, sperm and/or embryos and specifically states that altruistic donations are in line with Canadian values.

Germany

Germany maintains a conservative stance on IVF. The Embryo Protection Act dates back to 1990 and prohibits egg donation, surrogacy, the creation of embryos for non-medical reasons and limits the number of embryos that can be transferred in one cycle. A few states offer subsidies for IVF to same sex couples and unmarried couples, but the vast majority of states only provide assistance to heterosexual couples. The outdated legal framework reflects societal values that have apparently evolved. The current German coalition government set up an expert commission which in April 2024 recommended legalising and regulating egg donation and making surrogacy legal in limited circumstances.

Hong Kong SAR

Hong Kong’s Code of Practice on Reproductive Technology & Embryo Research was published by the Council of Human Reproductive Technology in 2002 and also reflects conservative values. Since same sex marriage is not yet legally recognised in Hong Kong, couples in same sex marriages and single women are not yet able to access post egg freezing services leading to live pregnancies. Only altruistic IVF is allowed in Hong Kong – commercial surrogacy is not legal. A few public hospitals provide public IVF services to couples where the wife is a Hong Kong permanent resident under the age of 40 years with no biological children. Unfortunately, the waiting period for the initial IVF appointment could be up to three years.

Japan

Japan has seen a rise in IVF popularity – in 2021, 1 in every 11.6 babies born was an IVF baby. Yet legal support for IVF remains limited. The Act on Regulation of Human Cloning Techniques governs IVF practices, only allowing the procedure under strict regulations. Embryo storage is permitted, but the law emphasizes that embryos should not be created for non-medical reasons. Due to the declining birth rate, IVF and other infertility treatments were added to national health insurance in 2022 but are only available to married couples. There are no legal provisions regulating surrogacy in Japan.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom offers a progressive legal environment for IVF pursuant to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which also established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. IVF is permitted for both medical and social reasons, with no age restrictions for women, although clinics may impose their own policies. Public funding for IVF is available depending upon where a patient lives but typically reserved for couples facing medical infertility. Altruistic surrogacy with paid expenses is legal in the UK, but surrogacy agreements are not enforceable.

United States

In the United States, IVF and surrogacy laws are primarily regulated at the state level, leading to significant variations and a complex landscape. While many states have adopted supportive legislation for IVF and commercial surrogacy, others impose restrictions based on ethical or religious beliefs. Insurance coverage for IVF also varies widely, with some states mandating coverage for infertility treatments. In February 2024, IVF treatments came to a standstill in Alabama when the state’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos should enjoy the same rights as children. Fertility providers paused IVF treatments for fear of prosecution for “wrongful death” in the event any embryos were destroyed during treatment. It was not until certain protections were carved out for fertility providers that IVF treatments resumed.

Conclusion – Ethical and Societal Implications

The legal frameworks surrounding IVF vary considerably across jurisdictions, guided by significantly different cultural, ethical and societal values. Issues such as embryo rights, consent and access to reproductive technologies are at the forefront of public discourse and legislation. 

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.