OLN

Test Blog

Trusts for Pets

by

Love for our four-legged friends

Our most precious family and friends in later years may be of the four-legged variety and we may worry about how to provide for them after we have departed. 

It was reported by the South China Morning Post in January 2024 that a woman in China left her US$ 2.8 million estate to her beloved cats and dogs. She did have children but they never visited her and her pets were her only comfort when she was aged and ill. Her will stipulated that her entire estate was to be used to care for her pets and their offspring. The local vet clinic was apparently appointed to administrate her estate.

How does one provide for one’s pets in the event of one’s inevitable passing? The simplest way is to discuss the issue with trusted family members or friends and agree verbally that the pets will one day be adopted by a trusted family member or friend. A more formal appointment can be drafted in a will and even include a fixed amount or a regular stipend, to be distributed by the executor of the will to the pet guardian. A lump sum bequest would suffice for a trustworthy pet guardian. On the other hand, a regular stipend, coupled with specific conditions, can incentivise pet guardians to diligently fulfil their responsibilities and ensure that essential health checks are conducted on the pets in their care.

The widow of Gene Roddenberry (creator of Star Trek) passed in 2009 at the age of 76 and purportedly left a US$ 4 million trust to benefit her faithful dogs plus US$ 1 million for a helper to care for them on her estate, for as long as the four-legged beneficiaries lived. In more complex cases, it may be prudent to set up a trust if an estate is particularly large or if the testator wishes to provide for their pets’ offspring i.e., a multigenerational legacy. Depending upon the jurisdiction, there may be tax benefits associated with a trust. A further advantage of setting up a trust is that one can specify how the trust funds are to be used and managed and include provisions for checks and balances. For example, there could be three separate parties in care arrangements – the actual caregiver(s), the entity/person disbursing funds and the entity/person overseeing the arrangements. If a certain property is designated for the exclusive use of said beneficiaries during their lifetime, provisions should be made regarding its eventual sale, including when the property should be sold and how the proceeds should be distributed.

Conclusion

Providing for our precious pets in the event of our passing requires some planning and careful consideration. While a simple verbal agreement or a simple will may be sufficient for some testators, a trust can offer a more comprehensive solution for larger estates or those who wish to provide for their pets’ descendants. By taking the time to plan for our pets’ futures, we can ensure that they receive the care and comfort they deserve in their older years.

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.

ABCs of Charitable Giving

by

The most beautiful bequests fulfil the dreams of their donors. Donors make charitable bequests in their wills in the hopes of leaving the world a slightly better place.

Types of bequests

Charitable bequests can be general, demonstrative, specific or residuary gifts. A general bequest is the gift of a specific amount of money or asset to a charity, without specifying how it should be used. A demonstrative bequest is a gift of a specific asset by the donor, such as an art piece, to a charity. A specific bequest is the gift of a specific amount of money or asset to a charity for a targeted purpose, such as funding for a research project. A residuary bequest is a gift of the remainder of a donor’s entire estate after all other bequests in a will have been made.

The type of charity that one selects may be cultural, environmental, scientific/medical, political or specifically targeted at a disadvantaged group/minority. For example, a donor may choose to support a cultural institution, such as a museum or a theatre, to promote arts and culture. They may choose to support an environmental organization, such as a wildlife conservation group, to protect the natural world. Scientific and medical charities, such as those focused on cancer research or disease prevention, are also popular choices. Political charities, such as those advocating for human rights or social justice, may also be considered. Finally, donors may choose to support charities that target specific groups, such as the elderly or those with disabilities.

Contact the charity

It is always a good idea to contact the charity directly to discuss a bequest in order to better understand their specific needs and their ongoing or latest initiatives. This can help ensure that the bequest is used effectively and efficiently and equally importantly, that the donor’s goals are aligned with those of the charity. Charities may also be able to provide guidance on the best way to structure the bequest, and may be able to offer recognition or other benefits (e.g., tax deductions) to the donor. The donor’s solicitor can review the guidance provided by the charity when drafting the donor’s will and/or trust document.

Targeted or general bequests can be made to specific charities, depending on the donor’s goals and preferences. A targeted bequest is a gift to a specific charity or research program, while a general bequest is a gift to a broader category of charities or causes. For example, a donor may choose to make a targeted bequest to a favourite hospital or research institution, or a general bequest to support medical research more broadly.

Perpetual/lump sum donation?

Perpetual or lump sum bequests can also be made. A perpetual bequest is a gift that is intended to last indefinitely, such as an endowment that provides ongoing funding to a charity. This type of bequest would require careful drafting by the donor’s solicitor in terms of ongoing management of the endowment fund. A lump sum bequest is a one-time gift of a specific amount of money or asset. Perpetual bequests can provide long-term support to a charity, while lump sum bequests can provide immediate/short to medium term funding for a specific project or initiative.

Always consider taxation

When making a charitable bequest, it is essential to consider taxation. In most jurisdictions, charitable bequests are eligible for tax deductions and possibly other benefits. Donor-advised funds, popular in the US and the UK, offer a flexible solution, allowing donors to make their gifts and then recommend how the funds are used over time. This approach can be particularly useful in instances where living donors are undecided about a specific charity but wish to take advantage of the available tax deductions immediately. The drawback is a loss of control over how funds are disbursed as the institution managing the donor advised fund takes control of the fund.

Bequests are revocable

If circumstances or affiliations change during a donor’s lifetime, the revocation of a charitable bequest can be made by asking a solicitor to help write a new will or a codicil to the existing will. This can be done at any time and can help ensure that the donor’s wishes are respected and their goals are achieved.

Charitable bequests can be a powerful way to make a positive impact. By understanding the different types of bequests, selecting charities that align with one’s goals and considering taxation and other implications, donors can ensure that their bequests are used effectively and efficiently to achieve a better world.

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 to Host “Arbitration and Justice: the Compromise on Insolvency, Illegality and Conflicting Arbitration Clauses?” Panel During the 2024 Hong Kong Arbitration Week

by

Oldham, Li & Nie (OLN) is pleased to announce its participation in the 2024 Hong Kong Arbitration Week, organised by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), taking place on 21-25 October 2024.

The firm will host a panel session titled “Arbitration and Justice: the Compromise on Insolvency, Illegality and Conflicting Arbitration Clauses?” on 22 October 2024 from 5:00 to 6:30 pm.

This debate session will critically examine the compatibility between arbitration and substantive/procedural justice in light of the latest case authorities, including:

  1. Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16, Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2024] HKCA 299, and Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited v Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited [2024] HKCA 352: The availability of bankruptcy / winding-up tools for arbitration-governed debts
  2. AAA v DDD [2024] HKCFI 513: The complication of incompatible arbitration clauses in multi-contract transactions
  3. G v N [2023] HKCFI 3366: The interplay between arbitration and illegality

The session promises to deliver a thorough examination of these critical issues from various expert perspectives.

The distinguished panel will feature:

  • Prof. Anselmo Reyes, International Judge at Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
  • William Wong SC, Barrister at Des Voeux Chambers
  • Frances Lok SC, Barrister at Des Voeux Chambers
  • Sarah Thomas, Associate General Counsel of McKinsey & Company

They will be joined by OLN’s lawyers, Partners Dantes Leung and Jonathan Lam, with Associate Davis Hui serving as the moderator. Each panelist will offer unique insights, contributing to a robust and enlightening debate.

For more information about the 2024 Hong Kong Arbitration Week, please visit https://hkaweek.hkiac.org/event/f3e694d2-39ac-451c-aa66-cb9d9af52bc2/summary. 

To register, please visit https://hkaweek.hkiac.org/event/f3e694d2-39ac-451c-aa66-cb9d9af52bc2/regProcessStep1.

无债项下清盘：香港法院应彷效枢密院原地踏步?

by

(这篇文章发表在 2024年八月香港律师会会刊)

在Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 案 中， 枢 密院对仲裁与破产清盘之间的相互关係作出了翻天复地的改变，重新确认「 传统方法」是英属维京群岛的判决：儘管呈请破产清盘的债项受仲裁协议管辖，但只有在公司证明该债项存在真诚而重大争议时，法庭才应搁置或驳回该呈请。枢密院认为，此案亦适合再来个一石二鸟： (1) 推 翻 英 国 案 例 Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2) [2015] Ch 589，即当未获承认的清盘呈请债项受仲裁协议管辖，除非在完全特殊的情况下，清盘呈请应被驳回或搁置（「 Salford Estates 方法」），及 (2)当清盘呈请债项受专有外地司法管辖权条款管辖，法庭採取与仲裁条款相同的基本政策。

Sian 案无疑是晴天霹雳，令普通法的仲裁圈子彻底震惊，不仅因为近十年来英国法院没有对 Salford Estates 方法作出任何重大的负面评价，而且因为 Salford Estates 方法基本上已获其他普通法司法管辖区的最高法院採用（儘管有修改），例如新加坡上诉法院在 AnAn Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank [2020] SGCA 33 的 判决和香港终审法院在 Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9 的判决（「 Guy Lam终审案」）（判词由澳洲高等法院前首席法官范礼全颁下）。如今英国法院的取向急剧转变，香港法院是否也该效法呢？

本文将审慎研究 Sian 案的理据。我等谨认为，枢密院仅打败了一个稻草人，却未能回答最根本的问题 ——是否存在合资格的债项来触发清盘制度以容许法庭行使任何酌情权。我等谨认为，法庭对受仲裁条款（至少在事实争议的层面而言）或专有外地司法管辖权条款管辖的呈请债项没有最终决定权，故无法判定是否存在合资格的债项。作为作者在 2020年 5 月刊登的文章《Lasmos 案及以后：鱼与熊掌可以兼得吗？》的续集，我等谨建议香港法庭採用 Salford Estates 方法是唯一不可抗拒而合乎逻辑的方法。

极端的 Sian 案：刁鑽的事实引致糟糕的法律?

Sian 案是一宗典型的贷款追讨案件，被申请人因上诉人未能偿还贷款而申请上诉人清盘，而上诉人则声称对被申请人有交相申索。

首先必须指出， Sian 案是极其特殊的。鉴于上诉人没有就初审的事实裁定提出上诉，上诉人因而承认没有真正或实质的理由争议清盘呈请债项。在这基础上，枢密院採取了实际的观点，认为在这种情况下要求债权人进行仲裁可能只会在没有任何好处下增加延误、麻烦和费用 (Sian, [92])。

实际作业而言，这种公开承认没有真正或实质理由争议清盘呈请债项的情况极为罕见。更常见的情况是债务人就债项提出某些争议，而法庭认为该些争议不真实及不实质。如果呈请债项受仲裁条款管辖，法庭是否可以充满信心地认为仲裁庭必然会得出与法庭完全相同的结论，即必然存在合资格的债项来触发清盘制度?

没有债务下清盘?

法庭显然无权随意把公司清盘。普通法司法管辖区的破产清盘法列明将公司清盘的特定途径。例如，根据香港《公司 ( 清盘及杂项条文 ) 条例》（ 《香港清盘条例》 ）第 177 条，公司可因无能力偿付其债项而被法院清盘。如债权人希望证明公司无能力偿付债项，债权人可根据《香港清盘条例》第 178 条的推定条文，针对相等于或超过港币 10,000 元的算定债项发出一份法定要求偿债书，或严谨证明该债项 (Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114)。因此，如果呈请清盘公司的理由仅是公司无力偿还呈请债项，于逻辑而言，法庭发出清盘令前必须先决定「债项」是否存在。

因此 ， 在 Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2022] 4 HKLRD 793 案（「 Guy Lam 上诉案」）中，香港上诉法庭裁定，首先，破产程序中确实存在有关公司债项的司法裁定 ([68])；其次，在债权人被认定为债权人之前，他根本没有资格提交任何呈请书 ([77])。同样地， Guy Lam 终审案中，范礼全法官没有排除强制搁置破产程序以诉诸仲裁的可能性 ([91])。

枢密院试图消除这个明确的逻辑，解释发出清盘令「只是一个公司无力偿债的临时假设。这个假设最终可能不是真实，但不会使清盘程序无效」。我等谨认为，这种说法只是一个稻草人 —— 当清盘呈请关乎特定的呈请债项，真正的问题不是公司整体而言是否「无力偿债」（直至公司所有资产变现为止，公司的状况仍可能波动），而是是否存在触发清盘制度的合资格债项。枢密院以 Lehman Brothers International Europe Ltd 清 盘后仍有巨额淨盈馀这个「最近最引人注目的例子」来支持它的说法，但这例子实际毫不相干。枢密院没有引用任何案例权威来支持其认为即使呈请债项不存在，亦不会使清盘程序无的主张。同样地，没有一个由枢密院引用，在 Salford 案前作出的判决支持这个不合逻辑的主张。

在Re Vitoria [1894] 2 QB 387 案中，英国上诉法庭关注如果债权人就一项判定债项提出的第一次破产清盘呈请因程序理由被驳回，该债权人是否可以再次根据相同的判定债项提出破产清盘呈请。显然，第一次破产清盘呈请程序不应被视为对相关判定债项的上诉。在此基础上，英国上诉法院在债权人第二次破产清盘呈请时向债务人发出破产令。不过，英国上诉法庭没有提出即使没有合资格债项，法院也有权宣布某人破产；恰恰相反，该案的破产令是由一项未被推翻撤销的判定债项支持。

在Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien [1990] HCA 8 案中，澳洲高等法院裁定，任何清盘人争议的债务均可提交法院或进行仲裁。这点是无争议的。然而，该案不涉及任何受仲裁条款管辖的呈请债项。无论如何，澳洲高等法院没有提出，即使不存在呈请债项，破产清盘程序亦不会无效。

在 Re Menastar Finance Ltd [2003] BCC 404 案中，英国高等法院考虑了一名债权人对清盘人接受一项判定债项的债权证明的挑战。该判定债项是清盘呈请原本的依据。由于挑战最终被驳回，该案当然不能支持公司可在没有合资格债项的情况下被清盘的主张。诚然，清盘人及法庭确实可调查判定债项，但只有存在欺诈、勾结或司法不公的证据时他们才可以这样做。因此，调查判定债项是一个例外情况，而不是一般常见的规则。更重要的是，「欺诈使一切变得无效」的原则没有理由只适用于调查判定债项，而不适用于清盘程序。

哪个机构有最终决定权?

有人可能会问：如果法庭可以在没有判决的情况下，基于具有管辖权的呈请债项将公司清盘，那麽为什麽当呈请债项受仲裁条款或专有外地司法管辖权条款管辖的情况下，法庭不能这样做呢？显然，如果法庭对呈请债项拥有管辖权，并且认为债务人对债项没有真正或实质的争议，除了 Re Menastar 列出的特殊情况外，我们可以安全地假设即使清盘人争议，法庭会一致地得出完全相同的结论，即确实存在债项。在有仲裁条款或专有外地司法管辖权条款的情况，这种假设则不再可靠。

我等谨认为，决定法庭是否可以在没有法庭判决或仲裁裁决的情况下发出清盘令的最终测试是：哪个机构—— 本地法院、仲裁庭、或外国法院—— 对呈请债项的实质理据拥有最终决定权？虽然枢密院在这个问题上似乎将仲裁条款等同专有外地司法管辖权条款，即仲裁庭或外国法院拥有专有管辖权 (Sian, [66])，两者存在一个关键的细微差别。

在普通法司法管辖区的仲裁法规中，除非当事人另有约定，实质上诉机制通常在局部情况下得到保留。例如，根据《香港仲裁条例》附表 2 第5 段及第 6 段，若在香港进行的仲裁程序中，仲裁庭作出的仲裁裁决所产生的法律问题是明显地错误，当事人可以就该法律问题向法庭提出上诉。因此，如果呈请债项是否存在是一个纯粹的法律问题，法庭可能有最终决定权，因为法庭可以採用一个极端的观点，认为任何与法庭观点矛盾的仲裁裁决在法律问题上都是「明显地错误」。然而，这个上诉机制不适用于事实问题，而且无论如何，亦不适用于外地判决，因此在该情况下，本地法庭对是否存在呈请债项没有最终决定权。

当法庭对呈请债项的实质理据没有最终决定权，法庭自然不能裁定呈请债项是否存在，满足法庭向债务人发出清盘令的先决条件。难怪儘管 Salford Estates 方 法 保 留 了 法 庭在此情况下，可依据特殊的因素向债务人发出清盘令的纯粹可能性，至今没有英国法院发现如此特殊的情 况 支 持 颁 令 清 盘 债 务 人 (Shaun Matos, “Arbitration Agreements and the Winding-Up Process: Reconciling Competing Values” (2023) 72 ICLQ 309, 313)。

平衡各项公共政策?

枢密院费力地强调，要求债权人在债项没有真正或实质的争议下进行仲裁，只会在没有任何好处下增加延误、麻烦和费用 (Sian, [92])。然而，枢密院迴避了一个问题，就是哪个机构 —— 本地法院、仲裁庭、或外国法院 —— 对呈请债项是否存在真正或实质争议有最终决定权。虽然清盘是一个重要的法定程序来有效地变现公司资产并公平分配予所有持份者(Sian, [32])，但它也是一个严苛的程序，会对公司业务造成严重干扰及对公司造成不可逆转的损害。权衡公司的合法利益及对整体经济的影响，除了成文法已订明且没有争议情况下，破产清盘的集体救济不应获轻易使用。

即使不完全肯定仲裁法规中的强制搁置条款（例如《香港仲裁条例》第20 条）是否适用，当呈请债项是由仲裁条款或专有外地司法管辖权条款管辖时，如说法庭不能或不应该採纳搁置或驳回破产清盘呈请的预设立场，则会犯下「否定前提」的谬误(即如果甲，则乙；不是甲，则不是乙) (Sian, [75])。我等谨认为，正确的问题不在于法庭的酌情权是否受到「束缚 」(Sian, [82], 引 用 Re Asia Master Logistics Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 423) 或「减少」(Sian, [83], 引用 But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873)，而是法庭考虑公司的偿债能力后，採取某种预设立场是否合理。我等谨认为，逻辑上当法庭不能对呈请债项是否存在有最终决定权，法庭的预设立场应为搁置或驳回破产清盘呈请，从而达致一致性并平衡公司的合法商业利益和整体经济的利益。

香港方法 : 孰好孰坏 ?

Salford Estates 方 法 在 Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449(「 Lasmos 方法」) 首次获本地法庭应用，儘管带有改动。前述两个方法的其中一个主要区别是 Lasmos 方法添加了一个要求，债务人公司需採取行动开展合同订明的争议解决程序。不论是 Guy Lam 上诉案或 Guy Lam 终审案还是其他判决， Lasmos方 法 至 今 未 得 到 正 式 认 可。 在 Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2024] HKCA 299 案中，香港上诉法庭认为 Lasmos 方法施加的额外要求，由债务人展示真诚的意图进行仲裁，对债务人而言并不严苛。

正如作者于早前的文章提出，难以证明 Lasmos 方法施加的额外要求具法理基础。「不严苛」显然不能成为施加一个法律要求的正当理由。除了上述提出的担忧外，无论债务人公司是否已採取合同订明的步骤，这都不能改变当呈请债项受仲裁条款或专有外地司法管辖权条款管辖时，本地法院对呈请债项的实质理据没有最终决定权。 Shaun Matos 有同样担忧，并揭示了首要考虑仲裁庭而非仲裁协 议 的 荒 谬 (“Reconciling Competing Values”, 330)。

在Guy Lam 终审案，香港的最高法院採用了「多因素」方法，尝试平衡基于仲裁条款或专有外地司法管辖权条款而支持搁置或驳回破产清盘呈请的强而有力的因由，与其他对抗的因素，例如近乎琐屑无聊或滥用司法程序的争议。我等谨认为，这方法既危险又易被操纵，理应避免，因为它孕育了新瓶旧酒的倾向 —— 例如在 Sun Entertainment Culture Limited v Inversion Productions Limited [2023] HKCFI 2400 案中，香港高等法院原讼法庭暂委法官郭美超女士以公司的抗辩琐屑无聊为由下令清盘，即在法庭因仲裁条款适用而没有最终决定权的情况下审理了抗辩的实质理据。

总结

毋庸置疑，仲裁与破产清盘之间的相互关係是重要的议题。正如枢密院所承认的，绝大多数清盘呈请均涉及债务 (Sian, [27])。不幸地，枢密院偏离了合乎逻辑的 Salford Estates 方法并返回传统方法，完全无视进行清盘前，须有合资格债项的法定要求，何况法庭没有亦不可能对呈请债项的实质理据有任何最终决定权。我等理解即使呈请债项由仲裁条款管辖，法庭仍希望保留该情况下的清盘制度(Sian, [93])，但不应忘记在破产清盘法规中，法庭仍有其他途径以更自然及合乎逻辑的方式将公司清盘，例如引用资不抵债或公正公平的原则。法院无需扭曲逻辑来作出不可能的事情。我等希望英国法院能及时改变取态，而香港法院也能为普通法这个领域的发展作出合乎逻辑的贡献。

Hong Kong – A Haven for Tax-Free Transfers of Gifts

by

Hong Kong stands out as a tax-free gifting jurisdiction, making it an attractive destination for individuals looking to transfer assets to lovers and other strangers alike. Unlike many other countries, Hong Kong does not levy any gift tax, allowing for tax-free gifts of property, investments and other assets (although it should be noted that transfers of real property and shares are subject to stamp duty).

This favourable tax environment has made Hong Kong a popular choice for those seeking to manage their estate planning and wealth transfer strategies. The absence of gift tax regulations in Hong Kong provides significant flexibility and planning opportunities, enabling individuals to gift assets without the burden of additional taxation.

One key aspect of Hong Kong’s gift tax policy is its broad application. Gifts made between family members, as well as transfers to unrelated parties, are all exempt from any gift tax. This simplicity and lack of complex rules or thresholds have contributed to Hong Kong’s appeal as a destination for seamless, tax-efficient gift-giving. Hand in hand with tax-free gifting is the lack of estate or inheritance taxes in Hong Kong. Normally estate, gift and inheritance taxes (or the lack thereof) go hand in hand so there is a coordinated effort to either ensure individuals are able to achieve tax-free transfers of their assets or ensure individuals are taxed on gifting their assets, depending upon the jurisdiction’s desire.

The United States – A Balance Between Gift and Estate Taxes

In contrast to Hong Kong, the United States has a more nuanced approach to gift taxation. The United States imposes a federal gift tax on certain transfers of property, with a lifetime exemption amount that is currently set at US$13.61 million per individual and US$27.22 million per couple (as of 2024).

 An individual making gifts that exceed the annual threshold amount (currently set at US$18,000 per recipient per year) must file a gift tax return and potentially pay a gift tax, depending on their overall lifetime gift and estate tax exemption usage. However, a number of gifts made between spouses (e.g., up to US$185,000 to a non-US citizen spouse) or to charitable organizations are exempt from this requirement.

The integration of gift and estate taxes in the United States aims to ensure that individuals do not simply during their lifetimes gift away their assets to avoid estate taxes upon their passing. This coordinated system helps maintain the integrity of the overall wealth transfer taxation framework in the country as there is an established estate tax regime in place at the federal and often state level, with six states also imposing an inheritance tax.

The United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, gifts are tax-free up to £3,000 per annum for a person’s estate, which may appear quite stingy compared to other regimes but this is part of the inheritance tax system. Any unused exemption may only be carried forward one year. There is a clawback in the form of inheritance tax for some gifts made less than 7 years before one’s death. Fortunately, there are a number of other exemptions in place, such as full exemption on gift and inheritance taxes for gifts given to spouses and civil partners, provided they are UK domiciled. Regular gifts to help with living costs such as paying a child’s rent that are made out of a donor’s regular monthly income as well as gifts under £250 are also exempt. To conclude, gifts made over 7 years before death are tax-free.

The European Union – Diverse Approaches to Gift Taxation

Within the European Union, the treatment of gift tax varies significantly across member states, as would be expected. While some countries like Estonia do not impose a standalone gift tax, other countries like Germany and France have specific gift tax regimes in place. Germany, for instance, levies an intricate gift tax on transfers of property, with tax rates ranging from 7% to 50% depending on the relationship between the donor and the recipient, as well as the value of the gift. France has an even more complex system that takes into account the frequency of gifts, the relationship between the parties and the value of the transferred assets. France’s gift tax ranges from 5% to 45% for direct line relatives and up to 60% for unrelated recipients but allowances do exist.

Different approaches within the European Union highlight the importance of understanding specific gift tax regulations when engaging in cross-border wealth transfers. Individuals and families seeking to make gifts must carefully navigate the specific rules and requirements of each relevant jurisdiction.

Other Notable Jurisdictions

Beyond Hong Kong, the United States and the European Union, there are several other notable jurisdictions with unique approaches to gift taxation. Australia generally does not have a gift tax, but certain gifts of real property or shares may be subject to capital gains tax or other tax implications. Canada does not have a standalone gift tax, but gifts may be subject to income tax or capital gains tax considerations once realised. Japan has a gift tax regime with progressive tax rates ranging from 10% to 55%, depending on the value of the gift, the relationship between the parties and certain deductions. Gift and inheritance taxes, working hand in hand, are high in Korea. Both gift and inheritance taxes range from 10% to 50%.

The global landscape of gift tax is a complex and ever-evolving landscape, with each jurisdiction offering its own set of rules, exemptions and tax implications. Understanding these nuances is crucial for individuals and families seeking to navigate the intricacies of cross-border wealth transfers, avoid potential double taxation and ensure compliance with the relevant gift tax regulations. To conclude, we reference the old adage, “The best things in life are free”. Not only are true love, true friendship and beautiful sunsets free, but so is tax-free gifting in Hong Kong.

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.

关于世界各地的死亡与税收

by

「在世上，只有死亡和税收是确定难免的」这一句格言是美国其中一个开国元勋和传奇学者短语归于本杰明-法兰克林 。为了避免雪上加霜，我们建议死后尽量避税。

美国财政部于2023年2月28日报告称，当天征收了70亿美元的「遗产税和赠与税」，这是自2005年以来征收的最高金额。 隐私条例禁止披露更多细节，但人们对需要支付这笔款项的人的身份猜测纷纷、 或者是作为提前规划遗产的一部分而支付的押金（以避免将来需要支付更高的金额） ，或者是已故亿万富翁的延迟付款，可能是由于强制执行行动。

香港于2006年2月11日废止了遗产税。此后,无需提交遗产税宣誓书或账目,也无需办理遗产税清关手续,即可申请获得香港死亡案件的遗产授予书。

然而，遗产税（IHT）在英国仍然适用。个人遗产税的征收比例为遗产价值超过免税额的部分只 40%。目前的免税额为每人 32.5 万英镑。 未使用的免税额可以转让给未亡配偶或民事伴侣。 这样一个人实际上就有了 65 万英镑的免税额。 此外，有多种免税和减税措施可用于减少个人所得税。例如，如果将所有财产遗赠给未亡配偶或民事伴侣、 慈善机构或社区业余体育俱乐部，则无需缴纳个人所得税。

在美国，2023年联邦遗产税免税额为每个人1,292万美元(已婚夫妻共2,584万美元)。联邦遗产税的最高税率为40%。美国许多州也征收自己的遗产税或继承税，免税额和税率各不相同。50 个州中有 33 个州不征收遗产税，包括拉巴马州、阿拉斯加州、亚利桑那州、阿肯色州、加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州、特拉华州或佛罗里邓州。

加拿大没有联邦遗产税或继承税。然而，一旦死亡，所有资本财产被视为处置，可能会引发离世人士遗产的资本利得税。离世人士的最终报税表必须报告所有资本收益和损失以及正常收入。加拿大的最高边际税率可高达 54%，具体取决于省份。

在歐洲聯盟，各成员国的遗产税和继承税规则大相径庭。在 27 个欧盟国家中，有19 个国家仍在征收某种形式的死亡税。8个欧盟国家 (奥地利、塞浦路斯、爱沙尼亚、 拉脱维亚、 马耳他、罗马尼亚、 斯洛伐克和瑞典）已经废除了继承税。适用的规则和豁免因具体国家、离世人士与受益人之间的关系以及遗产规模的不同而有很大差异。税率也差异很大，从波兰的0-20%到西班牙的7.65-87.6%。

台湾对超过一定门槛的资产征收10-20%的累进遗产税，目前设定为1,330万新台币，继承人和丧葬费用可享受免税和减税。

新加坡没有遗产税、继承税或资本利得税，但新加坡公司股份转让时可能需要缴纳印花税。

与香港一样，澳门是中华人民共和国的一个特别行政区，也没有继承税。

中国大陆曾于2002年发布了一项关于遗产税的规定草案，但从未通过过一项法规。 目前没有遗产税、赠与税或继承税。

相比之下，据2021年报道，三星电子董事长李健熙的遗产将支付超过12万亿韩元（107.8亿美元）的遗产税。韩国是世界上遗产税税率最高的国家之一。如果离世人士拥有控股权，则可在此基础上加收溢价。溢价有可能超过标准遗产税率50%。据报道，李先生的艺术收藏，包括夏加尔、 高更、米罗、 莫奈和毕加索的作品，将被捐赠给韩国国立博物馆，以帮助减轻部分税收负担。

世界各地的遗产和继承税差别很大。有些司法管辖区（如香港）完全取消了遗产和继承税，而其他司法管辖区则保留了复杂的扣除、免税和边际税率递增制度。我们在做财务和遗产规划时，必须随时了解相关司法管辖区的遗产税和继承税的最新情况。制定周密的遗产规划有助于消除或大限度地减轻继承人的税务负担，确保财富顺利跨代传承。虽然死亡和税收可能是必然的，但死后的税收可以通过专业指导巧妙地避免。

免责声明：本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不得解释为法律意见，无论是一般法律意见还是针对任何特定人士的法律意见。 高李严律师行所不对任何人因本文所载材料而导致的任何损失和/或损害承担责任。