OLN

OLN Marketing

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.

無債項下清盤：香港法院應仿效樞密院原地踏步?

by

(這篇文章發表在 2024年八月香港律師會會刊)

在Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 案 中， 樞 密院對仲裁與破產清盤之間的相互關係作出了翻天覆地的改變，重新確認「 傳統方法」是英屬維京群島的判決：儘管呈請破產清盤的債項受仲裁協議管轄，但只有在公司證明該債項存在真誠而重大爭議時，法庭才應擱置或駁回該呈請。樞密院認為，此案亦適合再來個一石二鳥： (1) 推 翻 英 國 案 例 Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2) [2015] Ch 589，即當未獲承認的清盤呈請債項受仲裁協議管轄，除非在完全特殊的情況下，清盤呈請應被駁回或擱置（「 Salford Estates 方法」），及 (2)當清盤呈請債項受專有外地司法管轄權條款管轄，法庭採取與仲裁條款相同的基本政策。

Sian 案無疑是晴天霹靂，令普通法的仲裁圈子徹底震驚，不僅因為近十年來英國法院沒有對 Salford Estates 方法作出任何重大的負面評價，而且因為 Salford Estates 方法基本上已獲其他普通法司法管轄區的最高法院採用（儘管有修改），例如新加坡上訴法院在 AnAn Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank [2020] SGCA 33 的 判決和香港終審法院在 Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9 的判決（「 Guy Lam終審案」）（判詞由澳洲高等法院前首席法官范禮全頒下）。如今英國法院的取向急劇轉變，香港法院是否也該效法呢？

本文將審慎研究 Sian 案的理據。我等謹認為，樞密院僅打敗了一個稻草人，卻未能回答最根本的問題 ——是否存在合資格的債項來觸發清盤制度以容許法庭行使任何酌情權。我等謹認為，法庭對受仲裁條款（至少在事實爭議的層面而言）或專有外地司法管轄權條款管轄的呈請債項沒有最終決定權，故無法判定是否存在合資格的債項。作為作者在 2020年 5 月刊登的文章《Lasmos 案及以後：魚與熊掌可以兼得嗎？》的續集，我等謹建議香港法庭採用 Salford Estates 方法是唯一不可抗拒而合乎邏輯的方法。

極端的 Sian 案：刁鑽的事實引致糟糕的法律?

Sian 案是一宗典型的貸款追討案件，被申請人因上訴人未能償還貸款而申請上訴人清盤，而上訴人則聲稱對被申請人有交相申索。

首先必須指出， Sian 案是極其特殊的。鑒於上訴人沒有就初審的事實裁定提出上訴，上訴人因而承認沒有真正或實質的理由爭議清盤呈請債項。在這基礎上，樞密院採取了實際的觀點，認為在這種情況下要求債權人進行仲裁可能只會在沒有任何好處下增加延誤、麻煩和費用 (Sian, [92])。

實際作業而言，這種公開承認沒有真正或實質理由爭議清盤呈請債項的情況極為罕見。更常見的情況是債務人就債項提出某些爭議，而法庭認為該些爭議不真實及不實質。如果呈請債項受仲裁條款管轄，法庭是否可以充滿信心地認為仲裁庭必然會得出與法庭完全相同的結論，即必然存在合資格的債項來觸發清盤制度?

沒有債務下清盤?

法庭顯然無權隨意把公司清盤。普通法司法管轄區的破產清盤法列明將公司清盤的特定途徑。例如，根據香港《公司 ( 清盤及雜項條文 ) 條例》（ 《香港清盤條例》 ）第 177 條，公司可因無能力償付其債項而被法院清盤。如債權人希望證明公司無能力償付債項，債權人可根據《香港清盤條例》第 178 條的推定條文，針對相等於或超過港幣 10,000 元的算定債項發出一份法定要求償債書，或嚴謹證明該債項 (Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114)。因此，如果呈請清盤公司的理由僅是公司無力償還呈請債項，於邏輯而言，法庭發出清盤令前必須先決定「債項」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 上訴案」）中，香港上訴法庭裁定，首先，破產程序中確實存在有關公司債項的司法裁定 ([68])；其次，在債權人被認定為債權人之前，他根本沒有資格提交任何呈請書 ([77])。同樣地， Guy Lam 終審案中，范禮全法官沒有排除強制擱置破產程序以訴諸仲裁的可能性 ([91])。

樞密院試圖消除這個明確的邏輯，解釋發出清盤令「只是一個公司無力償債的臨時假設。這個假設最終可能不是真實，但不會使清盤程序無效」。我等謹認為，這種說法只是一個稻草人 —— 當清盤呈請關乎特定的呈請債項，真正的問題不是公司整體而言是否「無力償債」（直至公司所有資產變現為止，公司的狀況仍可能波動），而是是否存在觸發清盤制度的合資格債項。樞密院以 Lehman Brothers International Europe Ltd 清 盤後仍有巨額淨盈餘這個「最近最引人注目的例子」來支持它的說法，但這例子實際毫不相干。樞密院沒有引用任何案例權威來支持其認為即使呈請債項不存在，亦不會使清盤程序無的主張。同樣地，沒有一個由樞密院引用，在 Salford 案前作出的判決支持這個不合邏輯的主張。

在Re Vitoria [1894] 2 QB 387 案中，英國上訴法庭關注如果債權人就一項判定債項提出的第一次破產清盤呈請因程序理由被駁回，該債權人是否可以再次根據相同的判定債項提出破產清盤呈請。顯然，第一次破產清盤呈請程序不應被視為對相關判定債項的上訴。在此基礎上，英國上訴法院在債權人第二次破產清盤呈請時向債務人發出破產令。不過，英國上訴法庭沒有提出即使沒有合資格債項，法院也有權宣布某人破產；恰恰相反，該案的破產令是由一項未被推翻撤銷的判定債項支持。

在Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien [1990] HCA 8 案中，澳洲高等法院裁定，任何清盤人爭議的債務均可提交法院或進行仲裁。這點是無爭議的。然而，該案不涉及任何受仲裁條款管轄的呈請債項。無論如何，澳洲高等法院沒有提出，即使不存在呈請債項，破產清盤程序亦不會無效。

在 Re Menastar Finance Ltd [2003] BCC 404 案中，英國高等法院考慮了一名債權人對清盤人接受一項判定債項的債權證明的挑戰。該判定債項是清盤呈請原本的依據。由於挑戰最終被駁回，該案當然不能支持公司可在沒有合資格債項的情況下被清盤的主張。誠然，清盤人及法庭確實可調查判定債項，但只有存在欺詐、勾結或司法不公的證據時他們才可以這樣做。因此，調查判定債項是一個例外情況，而不是一般常見的規則。更重要的是，「欺詐使一切變得無效」的原則沒有理由只適用於調查判定債項，而不適用於清盤程序。

哪個機構有最終決定權?

有人可能會問：如果法庭可以在沒有判決的情況下，基於具有管轄權的呈請債項將公司清盤，那麼為什麼當呈請債項受仲裁條款或專有外地司法管轄權條款管轄的情況下，法庭不能這樣做呢？顯然，如果法庭對呈請債項擁有管轄權，並且認為債務人對債項沒有真正或實質的爭議，除了 Re Menastar 列出的特殊情況外，我們可以安全地假設即使清盤人爭議，法庭會一致地得出完全相同的結論，即確實存在債項。在有仲裁條款或專有外地司法管轄權條款的情況，這種假設則不再可靠。

我等謹認為，決定法庭是否可以在沒有法庭判決或仲裁裁決的情況下發出清盤令的最終測試是：哪個機構—— 本地法院、仲裁庭、或外國法院—— 對呈請債項的實質理據擁有最終決定權？雖然樞密院在這個問題上似乎將仲裁條款等同專有外地司法管轄權條款，即仲裁庭或外國法院擁有專有管轄權 (Sian, [66])，兩者存在一個關鍵的細微差別。

在普通法司法管轄區的仲裁法規中，除非當事人另有約定，實質上訴機制通常在局部情況下得到保留。例如，根據《香港仲裁條例》附表 2 第5 段及第 6 段，若在香港進行的仲裁程序中，仲裁庭作出的仲裁裁決所產生的法律問題是明顯地錯誤，當事人可以就該法律問題向法庭提出上訴。因此，如果呈請債項是否存在是一個純粹的法律問題，法庭可能有最終決定權，因為法庭可以採用一個極端的觀點，認為任何與法庭觀點矛盾的仲裁裁決在法律問題上都是「明顯地錯誤」。然而，這個上訴機制不適用於事實問題，而且無論如何，亦不適用於外地判決，因此在該情況下，本地法庭對是否存在呈請債項沒有最終決定權。

當法庭對呈請債項的實質理據沒有最終決定權，法庭自然不能裁定呈請債項是否存在，滿足法庭向債務人發出清盤令的先決條件。難怪儘管 Salford Estates 方 法 保 留 了 法 庭在此情況下，可依據特殊的因素向債務人發出清盤令的純粹可能性，至今沒有英國法院發現如此特殊的情 況 支 持 頒 令 清 盤 債 務 人 (Shaun Matos, “Arbitration Agreements and the Winding-Up Process: Reconciling Competing Values” (2023) 72 ICLQ 309, 313)

平衡各項公共政策?

樞密院費力地強調，要求債權人在債項沒有真正或實質的爭議下進行仲裁，只會在沒有任何好處下增加延誤、麻煩和費用 (Sian, [92])。然而，樞密院迴避了一個問題，就是哪個機構 —— 本地法院、仲裁庭、或外國法院 —— 對呈請債項是否存在真正或實質爭議有最終決定權。雖然清盤是一個重要的法定程序來有效地變現公司資產並公平分配予所有持份者(Sian, [32])，但它也是一個嚴苛的程序，會對公司業務造成嚴重干擾及對公司造成不可逆轉的損害。權衡公司的合法利益及對整體經濟的影響，除了成文法已訂明且沒有爭議情況下，破產清盤的集體救濟不應獲輕易使用。

即使不完全肯定仲裁法規中的強制擱置條款（例如《香港仲裁條例》第20 條）是否適用，當呈請債項是由仲裁條款或專有外地司法管轄權條款管轄時，如說法庭不能或不應該採納擱置或駁回破產清盤呈請的預設立場，則會犯下「否定前提」的謬誤(即如果甲，則乙；不是甲，則不是乙) (Sian, [75])。我等謹認為，正確的問題不在於法庭的酌情權是否受到「束縛 」(Sian, [82], 引 用 Re Asia Master Logistics Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 423) 或「減少」(Sian, [83], 引用 But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873)，而是法庭考慮公司的償債能力後，採取某種預設立場是否合理。我等謹認為，邏輯上當法庭不能對呈請債項是否存在有最終決定權，法庭的預設立場應為擱置或駁回破產清盤呈請，從而達致一致性並平衡公司的合法商業利益和整體經濟的利益

香港方法 : 孰好孰壞 ?

Salford Estates 方 法 在 Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449(「 Lasmos 方法」) 首次獲本地法庭應用，儘管帶有改動。前述兩個方法的其中一個主要區別是 Lasmos 方法添加了一個要求，債務人公司需採取行動開展合同訂明的爭議解決程序。不論是 Guy Lam 上訴案或 Guy Lam 終審案還是其他判決， Lasmos方 法 至 今 未 得 到 正 式 認 可。 在 Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2024] HKCA 299 案中，香港上訴法庭認為 Lasmos 方法施加的額外要求，由債務人展示真誠的意圖進行仲裁，對債務人而言並不嚴苛。

正如作者於早前的文章提出，難以證明 Lasmos 方法施加的額外要求具法理基礎。「不嚴苛」顯然不能成為施加一個法律要求的正當理由。除了上述提出的擔憂外，無論債務人公司是否已採取合同訂明的步驟，這都不能改變當呈請債項受仲裁條款或專有外地司法管轄權條款管轄時，本地法院對呈請債項的實質理據沒有最終決定權。 Shaun Matos 有同樣擔憂，並揭示了首要考慮仲裁庭而非仲裁協 議 的 荒 謬 (“Reconciling Competing Values”, 330)。

在Guy Lam 終審案，香港的最高法院採用了「多因素」方法，嘗試平衡基於仲裁條款或專有外地司法管轄權條款而支持擱置或駁回破產清盤呈請的強而有力的因由，與其他對抗的因素，例如近乎瑣屑無聊或濫用司法程序的爭議。我等謹認為，這方法既危險又易被操縱，理應避免，因為它孕育了新瓶舊酒的傾向 —— 例如在 Sun Entertainment Culture Limited v Inversion Productions Limited [2023] HKCFI 2400 案中，香港高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官郭美超女士以公司的抗辯瑣屑無聊為由下令清盤，即在法庭因仲裁條款適用而沒有最終決定權的情況下審理了抗辯的實質理據。

總結

毋庸置疑，仲裁與破產清盤之間的相互關係是重要的議題。正如樞密院所承認的，絕大多數清盤呈請均涉及債務 (Sian, [27])。不幸地，樞密院偏離了合乎邏輯的 Salford Estates 方法並返回傳統方法，完全無視進行清盤前，須有合資格債項的法定要求，何況法庭沒有亦不可能對呈請債項的實質理據有任何最終決定權。我等理解即使呈請債項由仲裁條款管轄，法庭仍希望保留該情況下的清盤制度(Sian, [93])，但不應忘記在破產清盤法規中，法庭仍有其他途徑以更自然及合乎邏輯的方式將公司清盤，例如引用資不抵債或公正公平的原則。法院無需扭曲邏輯來作出不可能的事情。我等希望英國法院能及時改變取態，而香港法院也能為普通法這個領域的發展作出合乎邏輯的貢獻。

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.

關於世界各地的死亡與稅收

by

「在世上，只有死亡和稅收是確定難免的」這一句格言是美國其中一個開國元勳和傳奇學者短語歸於本傑明-法蘭克林。 為了避免雪上加霜，我們建議死後儘量避稅。

美國財政部於2023年2月28日報告稱，當天徵收了70億美元的「遺產稅和贈與稅」，這是自2005年以來徵收的最高金額。 隱私條例禁止披露更多細節，但人們對需要支付這筆款項的人的身份猜測紛紛、或者是作為提前規劃遺產的一部分而支付的押金（以避免將來需要支付更高的金額），或者是已故億萬富翁的延遲付款，可能是由於強制執行行動。

香港於2006年2月11日廢止了遺產稅。 此後，無需提交遺產稅宣誓書或帳目，也無需辦理遺產稅清關手續，即可申請獲得香港死亡案件的遺產授予書。

然而，遺產稅（IHT）在英國仍然適用。 個人遺產稅的徵收比例為遺產價值超過免稅額的部分只40%。 現時的免稅額為每人32.5萬英鎊。 未使用的免稅額可以轉讓給未亡配偶或民事伴侶。 這樣一個人實際上就有了65萬英鎊的免稅額。 此外，有多種免稅和減稅措施可用於减少個人所得稅。 例如，如果將所有財產遺贈給未亡配偶或民事伴侶、慈善機構或社區業餘體育俱樂部，則無需繳納個人所得稅。

在美國，2023年聯邦遺產稅免稅額為每個人1292萬美元（已婚夫妻共2584萬美元）。 聯邦遺產稅的最高稅率為40%。 美國許多州也徵收自己的遺產稅或繼承稅，免稅額和稅率各不相同。 50個州中有33個州不徵收遺產稅，包括拉巴馬州、阿拉斯加州、亞利桑那州、阿肯色州、加利福尼亞州、科羅拉多州、特拉華州或佛羅裏鄧州。

加拿大沒有聯邦遺產稅或繼承稅。 然而，一旦死亡，所有資本財產被視為處置，可能會引發離世人士遺產的資本利得稅。 離世人士的最終報稅錶必須報告所有資本收益和損失以及正常收入。 加拿大的最高邊際稅率可高達54%，具體取決於省份。

在歐洲聯盟，各成員國的遺產稅和繼承稅規則大相徑庭。 在27個歐盟國家中，有19個國家仍在徵收某種形式的死亡稅。 8個歐盟國家（奧地利、賽普勒斯、愛沙尼亞、拉脫維亞、馬爾他、羅馬尼亞、斯洛伐克和瑞典）已經廢除了繼承稅。 適用的規則和豁免因具體國家、離世人士與受益人之間的關係以及遺產規模的不同而有很大差异。 稅率也差异很大，從波蘭的0-20%到西班牙的7.65-87.6%。

臺灣對超過一定門檻的資產徵收10-20%的累進遺產稅，現時設定為1330萬新臺幣，繼承人和喪葬費用可享受免稅和減稅。

新加坡沒有遺產稅、繼承稅或資本利得稅，但新加坡公司股份轉讓時可能需要繳納印花稅。

與香港一樣，澳門是中華人民共和國的一個特別行政區，也沒有繼承稅。

中國大陸曾於2002年發佈了一項關於遺產稅的規定草案，但從未通過過一項法規。 現時沒有遺產稅、贈與稅或繼承稅。

相比之下，據2021年報導，三星電子董事長李健熙的遺產將支付超過12萬億韓元（ 107.8億美元）的遺產稅。 韓國是世界上遺產稅稅率最高的國家之一。 如果離世人士擁有控股權，則可在此基礎上加收溢價。 溢價有可能超過標準遺產稅率50%。 據報導，李先生的藝術收藏，包括夏加爾、高更、米羅、莫奈和畢卡索的作品，將被捐贈給韓國國立博物館，以幫助減輕部分稅收負擔。

世界各地的遺產和繼承稅差別很大。 有些司法管轄區（如香港）完全取消了遺產和繼承稅，而其他司法管轄區則保留了複雜的扣除、免稅和邊際稅率遞增制度。 我們在做財務和遺產規劃時，必須隨時瞭解相關司法管轄區的遺產稅和繼承稅的最新情况。 製定周密的遺產規劃有助於消除或大限度地減輕繼承人的稅務負擔，確保財富順利跨代傳承。 雖然死亡和稅收可能是必然的，但死後的稅收可以通過專業指導巧妙地避免。

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。 本文中的任何內容均不得解釋為法律意見，無論是一般法律意見還是針對任何特定人士的法律意見。 高李嚴律師行不對任何人因本文所載資料而導致的任何損失和/或損害承擔責任。