Holland & Knight – China Practice Newsletter: March - April 2021 by Holland & Knight

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 NEW CALIFORNIA LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS FOR 2021 ........................................................4 2021 年加州新劳动及雇佣法律.................................................................................................................13 A PRIMER ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: PART 2 .....................................................................20 律师-客户特权保护问题入门：第二部分 ..................................................................................................25 CROSS BORDER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS...................................................................................29 跨境婚前协议 ...........................................................................................................................................32 THE ABCS OF EXPATRIATION IN THESE CHAOTIC TIMES ................................................................34 关于在此纷扰时期放弃美国国籍的基本知识 .............................................................................................45 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................55 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................55 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................55 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................55

China Practice Newsletter Holland & Knight is a U.S.-based global law firm committed to provide high-quality legal services to our clients. We provide legal assistance to Chinese investors and companies doing business or making investments in the United States and Latin America. We also advise and assist multinational corporations and financial institutions, trade associations, private investors and other clients in their China-related activities. With more than 1,400 professionals in 27 offices, our lawyers and professionals are experienced in all of the interdisciplinary areas necessary to guide clients through the opportunities and challenges that arise throughout the business or investment life cycles. We assist Chinese clients and multinational clients in their China-related activities in areas such as international business, mergers and acquisitions, technology, healthcare, real estate, environmental law, private equity, venture capital, financial services, taxation, intellectual property, private wealth services, data privacy and cybersecurity, labor and employment, ESOPs, regulatory and government affairs, and dispute resolutions. We invite you to read our China Practice Newsletter, in which our authors discuss pertinent Sino-American topics. We also welcome you to discuss your thoughts on this issue with our authors listed within the document.

霍兰德奈特律师事务所是一家位于美国的全球性法律事务所，我们致力于向客户提供高质量的法律服务。我们向在美国及拉丁美洲进行商业活动或投资的中国投资人及公司提供他们所需的各类法律协助。我们也向跨国公司、金融机构、贸易机构、投资人及其他客户提供他们于其与中国相关活动中所需的咨询和协助。我们在 27 个办公室的 1400 多名对各领域有经验的律师及专业人员能够协助客户处理他们在经营或投资过程中所遇到的各种机会及挑战。我们向中国客户及从事与中国有关活动的跨国客户提供法律协助的领域包括国际商业、企业并购、科技法律、医疗法律、房地产、环保法律、私募基金、创投基金、金融法律服务、税务、知识产权、私人财富管理法律服务、信息隐私及网络安全、劳动及雇佣法律、员工持股计划、法令遵循及政府法规、及争议解决。我们邀请您阅读刊载我们各作者就与中美有关的各议题所作论述的 China Practice 期刊。我们也欢迎您向本期刊的各作者提供您对各相关议题的看法。

New California Labor and Employment Laws for 2021 By Linda Auerbach Allderdice, Deisy Castro, John H. Haney, Thomas E. Hill, Samuel J. Stone and Tina Tellado

HIGHLIGHTS  Numerous labor and employment laws passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom took effect on Jan. 1, 2021.  New regulations by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) govern COVID-19 issues at the workplace.  California's minimum wage and overtime exempt salary thresholds will increase on Jan. 1, 2021. ________________ This Holland & Knight alert highlights selected and significant new California labor and employment laws, regulations governing COVID-19 issues at the workplace by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and the state's increased minimum wage and overtime exempt salary thresholds. Unless otherwise noted in this alert, each of the laws listed below became effective on Jan. 1, 2021.             

 

AB 685 – COVID-19 Workplace Exposure, Notice to Employees and Serious Violations Cal/OSHA's Emergency Regulations for COVID-19 Prevention and Testing SB 1159 – COVID-19 Workers' Compensation Presumption Executive Order Suspending Cal-WARN's 60-Day Notice Requirement Prior to Mass Layoff, Relocation or Termination AB 2257 – Modifications and Additional Carve-Outs to AB 5 to Protect Independent Contractor Relationships AB 2143 – Loosened Restrictions on "No Re-Hire" Provisions in Employment Settlement Agreements SB 973 – New Pay Data Reporting Obligations for Employers with 100 or More Employees SB 1383 – California Family Rights Act Significantly Expanded to Cover Businesses with Five or More Employees AB 1867 – Supplemental COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave Expires Dec. 31, 2020 / Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program AB 2017 – Employees Authorized to Designate Paid Sick Leave Taken for Kin Care AB 2399 – Expansion of California State Paid Family Leave Benefits AB 2992 – Expanded Protections for Employee Victims of Crime or Abuse AB 1947 – Time for Filing Complaints with California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Extended to One Year, and Prevailing Plaintiffs in Whistleblower Retaliation Claims Can Recover Reasonable Attorneys' Fees AB 3075 – Expansion of Successor Liability for Labor Code Judgments California's Minimum Wage and Overtime Exempt Salary Thresholds Increase in 2021

AB 685 – COVID-19 WORKPLACE EXPOSURE, NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES, AND SERIOUS VIOLATIONS AB 685 requires that employers take prompt action in response to COVID-19 incidents. Employers must provide written notice to all employees who "may have been exposed" at a worksite. The required notice must be provided within one business day of the employer receiving notice that an individual who either tested positive for COVID-19 or is subject to a specific isolation order was in the workplace. The notice must state that the employee "may have been exposed to COVID-19"; provide information about benefits which the individual may be entitled to under federal, state or local law, including workers' compensation, paid sick leave, and anti-retaliation and anti-discrimination protections; and provide information about the disinfection and safety plans that the employer plans to implement and complete per U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. The notice must be distributed in a manner normally used to communicate employmentrelated information to employees and shall be in English and the language understood by the majority of employees. The names or other identifying information of potentially infected individuals should not be included in the notice or otherwise disclosed to employees. The notice must be retained for three years for recordkeeping purposes. Finally, if the employees entitled to notice are represented by an exclusive representative such as a union, the employer must provide notice containing the information required in a Cal/OSHA Form 300 to the employee representative. AB 685 also requires that employers provide notice to their local health department in situations of an "outbreak" or "major outbreak." Within 48 hours of learning that 1) three or more COVID-19 cases have occurred within a 14-day period at the workplace (an outbreak) or 2) 20 or more COVID-19 cases have occurred in a 30-day period at the workplace (a major outbreak), the employer must notify the local health department of such occurrences. Notice to the local health department must include the names, number, occupation and worksite of those impacted by the outbreak, including the business address and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the worksite. Once an outbreak occurs, the local health department must be notified of all subsequent confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the worksite. Significantly, Cal/OSHA is now permitted to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (OPU) related to COVID-19. From Jan. 1, 2021, through Jan. 1, 2023, Cal/OSHA may shut down entire worksites or specific worksite areas that expose employees to imminent hazards related to COVID-19 infections. OPUs can prohibit entry into a particular place of employment or use of particular equipment or processes and now may be more quickly issued under AB 685 – no pre-citation notice of a potential "serious violation" is required before issuing a citation.

CAL/OSHA'S EMERGENCY REGULATIONS FOR COVID-19 PREVENTION AND TESTING Effective Nov. 30, 2020, and continuing while permanent regulations are drafted, Cal/OSHA requires almost every employer in California to implement a site-specific written COVID-19 prevention plan. Cal/OSHA's emergency regulations (See previous Holland & Knight alert, "Cal/OSHA Issues Immediate COVID-19 Prevention Requirements for Nearly All California Employers," Dec. 7, 2020) require that employers implement training and notice requirements for employees. Many of the notice requirements in the Cal/OSHA emergency regulations mirror the requirements implemented by AB 685, including requiring that information regarding available leave and benefits be provided. While AB 685 is aimed primarily at post-COVID-19-exposure requirements, the Cal/OSHA regulations direct employers to act proactively pre-COVID-19 exposure to prevent exposure, including through mandatory assessments of prevention systems and plans.

Significantly, the Cal/OSHA regulations require that employers offer free COVID-19 testing during work hours. Employers must offer employees who have been potentially exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace COVID-19 testing at no cost and during working hours. If an outbreak occurs, the employer must provide testing to all employees at the workplace, except to those not present during the 14-day outbreak period. These same employees must be tested one week after the first test and retested weekly until the outbreak has ended. If a major outbreak occurs, twice-weekly testing (unless the local health department recommends more frequent testing) must be offered to all employees who remain at the worksite during the 30-day period.

SB 1159 – COVID-19 WORKERS' COMPENSATION PRESUMPTION SB 1159 expands compensable workplace injuries to include COVID-19 illness, likely resulting in an increased number of claims filed by employees under California's no-fault Workers' Compensation system. Under SB 1159, if an employee 1) tested positive for or was diagnosed with COVID-19 within 14 days of being at work, and 2) the employee was at work between March 19, 2020, and July 5, 2020, or the employee was at work during a period of "outbreak" (as defined by Labor Code section 3212.88(m)(4)) after July 6, 2020, the COVID-19 illness is presumed to be an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, therefore qualifying the employee for Workers' Compensation benefits. The presumption of workplace injury is rebuttable with evidence; if no evidence is offered the presumption is binding. While employers and carriers typically have up to 90 days to determine whether to accept or reject a workers' compensation claim, if a COVID-19-related illness claim is not rejected within 30 days of filing the claim, the illness is presumed to be compensable. Employees who test positive for or are diagnosed with COVID-19 shall be certified for temporary disability within 15 days after diagnosis and shall be recertified every 15 days for the first 45 days following diagnosis. Notably, temporary disability benefits are not payable until the employee exhausts paid sick leave benefits specifically available for COVID-19. If the employer knows or reasonably should know that an employee has tested positive for COVID-19, the employer shall report to the administrator for Workers' Compensation claims, within three business days, that 1) an employee has tested positive, 2) the date of the positive test, with the date being the date the specimen was collected for testing, 3) the address of the employee's place of employment for the 14 days preceding the positive test, and 4) the highest number of employees who reported to work at that particular place of employment in the 45 days preceding the last date the positive employee worked at the particular place of employment. The employer must not reveal the employee's name or other identifying information unless the employee has already initiated a Workers' Compensation claim. Intentional submission of false or misleading information, or failing to submit information, subjects the employer or submitter to a civil penalty of up to $10,000.

EXECUTIVE ORDER SUSPENDING CAL-WARN'S 60-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO MASS LAYOFF, RELOCATION OR TERMINATION Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order on March 17, 2020, suspending California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act's (Cal-WARN) 60-day notice obligation retroactive to March 4, 2020, subject to certain conditions. (See previous Holland & Knight alert, "California Announces Emergency Suspension of Certain Cal-WARN Act Provisions," March 19, 2020). The suspension of Cal-WARN's 60-day notice requirement remains in place until the end of the state of emergency previously declared by Gov. Newsom on March 4, 2020. Though the 60-day notice requirement is suspended, employers must still provide employees "as much notice as practicable" of the impending layoff, termination or relocation. The notice to employees must include specific statements regarding availability of unemployment insurance in addition to other required Cal-WARN Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

notice language. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) has published guidance to employers regarding these notice requirements.

AB 2257 – MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONAL CARVE-OUTS TO AB 5 TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIPS Undoubtedly one of the most significant seachanges in recent California labor and employment law history is AB 5 and the adoption of the "ABC" test to determine in most cases whether an independent contractor is, in fact, a contactor or an employee. (See previous Holland & Knight alert, "New California Law Codifies – and Expands – Strict ABC Test for Independent Contractor Status," Sept. 25, 2019). AB 2257 primarily adds exemptions for certain industries to the ABC test and modifies other exemptions. AB 2257 is intended to address what critics perceived as overbreadth of AB 5 by exempting more industries from the ABC test, expanding existing exemptions and creating new exemptions. (See previous Holland & Knight alert, "New California Law Excludes Some Industries from "ABC" Test for Independent Contractors," Sept. 9, 2020). The legislation adds exemptions for, among others, fine artists, freelance writers, translators, editors, advisors, producers, copy editors, illustrators, insurance underwriters, real estate appraisers, home inspectors, those providing professional consulting services, as well as certain occupations involved with creating, marketing, promoting or distributing sound recordings or musical compositions and musicians for the purpose of a singleengagement live performance event and other performance artists. AB 2257 also modifies the exemption for photographers, photojournalists, videographers and photo editors. Significantly, AB 2257 expanded the narrowly crafted business-to-business exemption in a manner allowing two sole proprietors to enter into a contractor relationship. While AB 2257 is an improvement over AB 5, it still does not address the Swiss-cheese nature of what industries are exempted from AB 5. AB 2257, for example, notably does not make any accommodations for transportation and technology companies serving as platforms to connect passengers or freight to available contractors.

AB 2143 – LOOSENED RESTRICTIONS ON "NO RE-HIRE" PROVISIONS IN EMPLOYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS Currently, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, prohibits "no-rehire" provisions in settlement agreements. These "no-rehire" provisions prevent, prohibit or otherwise restrict employees from obtaining future employment with the employer or a related entity. These provisions are prohibited from settlement agreements when an employee has filed a claim against an employer in either court or an administrative agency, or made a complaint through some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or employer internal complaint process. This prohibition against "no-rehire" provisions does not apply to severance agreements. There is also an exception to this prohibition when an employer has made a "good faith determination" that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault. AB 2143 slightly modifies California Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5. Specifically, it requires that the aggrieved former employee must have filed the claim in good faith in order for the prohibition against "no-rehire" provisions to apply. It also expands this "no-rehire" exception to allow no-rehire provisions when the former employee engaged in any criminal conduct, rather than limiting the exception to sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Finally, AB 2143 clarifies that, in order to qualify for the "good faith determination" exception, an employer's determination must have been made and documented before the aggrieved person filed the claim or complaint.

SB 973 – NEW PAY DATA REPORTING OBLIGATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS WITH 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES In an effort to address pay inequities, SB 973 requires employers with 100 or more employees and who are required under federal law to file an annual federal Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to submit an annual pay data report to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The report must include the number of employees and the hours they worked by race, ethnicity and gender in 10 federal identified job categories and whose annual earnings fall within the pay bands used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupational Employment Statistics survey. Employers must submit their pay data reports to the DFEH by March 31, 2021, and annually thereafter. The DFEH has begun publishing guidance for employers, including clarification that in determining whether the 100-employee threshold has been met, employers must count all employees, including part-time employees, those on leave and those outside of California. The DFEH also has confirmed that data reports submitted by employers must include employees who are working in California and/or assigned to a California establishment, including those teleworking outside of California. The DFEH intends to create an employer submission portal on its website where employers can submit the required report. The DFEH also intends to publish standard forms for employers to use in submitting the required data, although it has confirmed that an employer may submit a federal EEO-1 Report to the DFEH in order to fulfill its reporting obligation, as long as it contains the same or substantially similar pay data information required pursuant to SB 973. DFEH is continuing to publish guidance to employers on a rolling basis.

SB 1383 – CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED TO COVER BUSINESSES WITH FIVE OR MORE EMPLOYEES The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) currently requires employers of 50 or more employees to provide an eligible California employee up to 12 workweeks of protected family and medical leave. California employees are eligible for CFRA leave if they 1) have completed at least 12 months of employment with the employer, 2) have worked for the employer for at least 1,250 hours in the past 12 months and 3) are employed at a worksite that has 50 or more employees within 75 miles of that worksite. Employees may currently take protected leave under the CFRA for the following: 1) birth of a child, adoption of a child or placement of a foster child, 2) care of a spouse, parent or child with a serious health condition, or 3) recovery from an employee's own serious health conditions. The CFRA and its regulations provide complex requirements for CFRA leave administration, benefit continuation, employee notices, medical certifications and interaction with other protected leaves. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2021, the CFRA's family and medical leave requirements will extend to small businesses with five or more employees, regardless of the size of any employer worksites. (See previous Holland & Knight alert, "Small Businesses Must Give Family and Medical Leave to Eligible California Employees in 2021," Sept. 28, 2020).

However, to be eligible for CFRA leave, a California employee must still 1) have completed at least 12 months of employment with the employer, and 2) have worked for the employer for at least 1,250 hours in the past 12 months. Additionally, SB 1383 expands leave rights by allowing CFRA leave for the care of a grandparent, grandchild or domestic partner who has a serious medical condition. The definition of "child" is modified to remove the requirement that the child be younger than 18 years old or an adult dependent child. Further, a "child" will include the child of an employee's domestic partner. SB 1383 brings the CFRA into closer alignment with the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by allowing CFRA leave because of a "qualifying exigency" related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of an employee's spouse, domestic partner, child or parent in the U.S. armed forces. Prior to Jan. 1, 2021, if both parents entitled to CFRA leave are employed by the same employer, the employer is not required to provide more than a total of 12 workweeks of CFRA leave for both parents in connection with the birth, adoption or foster care of a child. SB 1383 removes this exemption, and employers will be required to provide up to 12 workweeks of CFRA leave to each parent. Before SB 1383, an employer could refuse to reinstate an employee returning from leave to the same or comparable position if, among other things, the employee is salaried and among the highest paid 10 percent of the employees employed within 75 miles of the employee's worksite. This is commonly known as the "key employee" exemption. SB 1383 removes this exemption. Finally, SB 1383 repeals the California New Parent Leave Act (NPLA), which currently provides for protected baby bonding leave to eligible employees of California employers with 20 to 49 employees. The NPLA will become unnecessary once CFRA's leave rights, which already include baby bonding leave, are extended to small employers.

AB 1867 – SUPPLEMENTAL COVID-19 PAID SICK LEAVE EXPIRES DEC. 31, 2020 / SMALL EMPLOYER FAMILY LEAVE MEDIATION PILOT PROGRAM Effective Sept. 19, 2020, AB 1867 required private employers who employ 500 or more employees nationally to provide California employees with supplemental paid sick time for COVID-19-related absences, which included if the employee is: 1) subject to a federal, state or local quarantine COVID-19-related order; 2) advised by a healthcare professional to quarantine due to COVID-19-related concerns; or 3) prohibited from working by employer due to health concerns related to potential transmission of COVID-19. It also codified Executive Order N-51-20, which provided supplemental paid sick leave to food sector workers, and requires employees working in a food facility to be permitted to wash their hands every 30 minutes and as needed. AB 1867 also applied the benefits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to any employer that employs healthcare providers or emergency responders. The FFCRA provides exemptions for those employers. Pursuant to AB 1867, full-time employees, or those scheduled to work an average of at least 40 hours per week, and who leave their home or residence to perform work, are entitled to 80 hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. Part-time employees are entitled to the equivalent of two weeks or 14 days of supplemental paid sick leave, although the actual amount will depend on the hours worked by the employee. This leave is in addition to other leave that the employee may otherwise be eligible to receive, with a few exceptions. It is the employee's choice regarding the number of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave hours to use, which are available to use before other forms of paid time off. An employer may not require that an

employee use other paid time off, leave or vacation before or in lieu of this COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. The COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave shall be compensated at the highest of either 1) the employee's regular rate of pay for their last pay period; 2) the state minimum wage; or 3) the local minimum wage, although under any of these calculations the pay is capped at $511 per day and $5,110 total. Employers must display a poster, or otherwise disseminate a notice, explaining the nature of the COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. The California Labor Commissioner has published a model notice that employers may use for these purposes. Employers must also provide each employee with notice of the amount of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave available each pay period. The COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave requirements under AB 1867 are set to expire on Dec. 31, 2020, or upon the expiration of any federal extension of FFCRA, whichever occurs later. If the law expires while an employee is taking COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave, the employee is entitled to continue to take the full amount of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave that he or she would have been otherwise entitled to. As of the date of this alert, Congress has not yet extended FFCRA. Lastly, and unrelated to the COVID-19 relief provided by the legislation, AB 1867 creates a DFEH small employer family leave mediation pilot program, which applies to employers that have between five and 19 employees. Under this new program, a qualifying small employer that receives a Right to Sue letter from the DFEH as a result of a claim filed under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) can request mediation through the DFEH within 30 days of receipt. Upon the employer's mediation request, the employee is prohibited from filing a civil claim in court until after mediation is completed. There are no requirements that parties resolve the claim at mediation. The DFEH's mediation pilot program will remain in effect until Jan. 1, 2024.

AB 2017 – EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE PAID SICK LEAVE TAKEN FOR KIN CARE Currently, California law permits employees to use up to one-half of their accrued and available sick leave to attend to the illness or preventative care of a family member. Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees because they used their sick leave for such purposes. AB 2017 modifies California Labor Code section 233 to provide that an employee has sole discretion to designate sick leave taken for kin care, i.e., caring for a sick family member. Specifically, this law was designed to prevent an employer's designation of an employee's usage of sick days as kin care, which would intentionally or erroneously deplete the employee's available kin care leave. Accordingly, pursuant to AB 2017, employees are provided with the right to designate what type of sick days they wish to take. Violation of this law entitles an aggrieved employee to reinstatement and actual damages, or one day's pay, whichever is greater, and to appropriate equitable relief.

AB 2399 – EXPANSION OF CALIFORNIA STATE PAID FAMILY LEAVE BENEFITS California's Paid Family Leave program provides wage replacement benefits for workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill family member or for baby bonding. In 2018, the Paid Family Leave program was expanded to include covered time off for participation in a qualified exigency related to covered active duty or call to active duty of a spouse, domestic partner, parent or child in the U.S. Armed Forces. Although enacted in 2018, this Paid Family Leave expansion took effect on Jan. 1, 2021. Related to this expansion of the Paid Family Leave program, AB 2399 modifies Unemployment Insurance Code sections 3302 and 3307 in order to make several clarifying changes and additions, including defined terms and confirmation of the documentation required for a qualifying exigency.

AB 2992 – EXPANDED PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEE VICTIMS OF CRIME OR ABUSE Current law prohibits employers from discharging, discriminating against or retaliating against employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking for taking time off from work to obtain or attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order, restraining order or other injunctive relief or to help ensure the health, safety or welfare of the victim or the victim's child. Current law also prohibits employers with 25 or more employees from discharging, discriminating or retaliating against employees from taking time off for other specified reasons. AB 2992 expands these protections by broadly defining "victim" as 1) a victim of stalking, domestic violence or sexual assault, 2) a victim of a crime that caused physical injury or that caused mental injury and a threat of physical injury, and 3) a person whose immediate family member, as defined, died as the direct result of a crime. AB 2992 defines "crime" as "a crime or public offense as set forth in Section 13951 of the Government Code, and regardless of whether any person is arrested for, prosecuted for, or convicted of, committing the crime." Current law also provides that if an unscheduled absence occurs, an employer is prohibited from taking action against the employee if the employee, within a reasonable time after the absence, provides a certification, as specified, to the employer. AB 2992 allows such certifications to include documentation from a victim advocate as well as any form of documentation that reasonably verifies that the crime or abuse occurred such as a written statement signed by the employee or an individual acting on the employee's behalf.

AB 1947 – TIME FOR FILING COMPLAINTS WITH CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT (DLSE) EXTENDED TO ONE YEAR, AND PREVAILING PLAINTIFFS IN WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CLAIMS CAN RECOVER REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES Currently, employees who believe they have been discriminated against in violation of any law enforced by the California Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) within six months after the alleged violation. AB 1947 expands this deadline to one year after the alleged violation. AB 1947 also amends California's whistleblower retaliation statute, California Labor Code section 1102.5, which does not currently provide for the recovery of attorneys' fees. AB 1947 authorizes a court to award reasonable attorneys' fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action under Section 1102.5.

AB 3075 – EXPANSION OF SUCCESSOR LIABILITY FOR LABOR CODE JUDGMENTS AB 3075 adds new Section 200.3 to the California Labor Code, which provides that "[a] successor to a judgment debtor shall be liable for any wages, damages, and penalties owed to any of the judgment debtor's former workforce pursuant to a final judgement, after the time to appeal therefrom has expired and for which no appeal therefrom is pending." A "successorship" is a company that 1) uses substantially the same facilities or substantially the same workforce to offer substantially the same services as the judgment debtor, 2) has substantially the same owners or managers that control the labor relations as the judgement debtor, 3) employs as a managing agent any person who directly controlled the wages, hour or working conditions or the affected workforce of the judgement debtor, and 4) operates a business in the same industry and the business has an owner, partner, officer or director with an immediate family member of any owner, partner, officer or director of the judgment.

AB 3075 also adds new obligations for a company when submitting its statement of information with the California Secretary of State, to state whether "any member or any manager has an outstanding final judgment issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or a court of law, for which no appeal therefrom is pending, for the violation of any wage order or provision of the Labor Code."

CALIFORNIA'S MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME EXEMPT SALARY THRESHOLDS INCREASE IN 2021 SB 3, enacted in the 2015-2016 legislative session, sets forth a schedule for minimum wage increases through 2023. Beginning Jan. 1, 2021, for employers with 26 employees or more, the minimum wage will increase from $13 per hour to $14 per hour, and the exempt annual salary threshold will increase from $54,080 to $58,240. For employers with 25 employees or less, the minimum wage will increase from $12 per hour to $13, and the exempt annual salary threshold will increase from $49,920 to $54,080.

2021 年加州新劳动及雇佣法律原文作者：Linda Auerbach Allderdice、Deisy Castro、 John H. Haney、Thomas E. Hill、Samuel J. Stone 及 Tina Tellado

重点摘要  加州立法机关通过许多劳动和雇佣法律，并由加文·纽森州长签署成为法律于 2021 年 1 月 1 日生效。  加州职业安全与健康管理局（Cal/OSHA）的新法规规范工作场所的 COVID-19 问题。  加州的最低工资和豁免员工加班工资起点于 2021 年 1 月 1 日提高。 —————————— 本 Holland & Knight 提示文章重点介绍了特定的和重要的新加州劳动和雇佣法律、加州职业安全与健康管理局（Cal/OSHA）规范工作场所的 COVID-19 问题的法规、以及加州提高的最低工资和豁免员工加班工资起点。除非本提示文章中另有说明，否则下列各项法律自 2021 年 1 月 1 日起生效。  AB 685 –在工作场所暴露于 COVID-19、通知员工和严重违规  加州/职业安全与健康管理局的应急规定–适用于 COVID-19 的预防和检测  SB 1159–COVID-19 员工赔偿推定  行政命令—暂停《员工调整和再培训通知法》（Cal-WARN）中关于大规模裁员、搬迁或终止前 60 天的通知要求  AB 2257–对 AB 5 进行修改和适用排除，以保护独立承包商关系  AB 2143–放宽对就业安置协议中“禁止再雇用”条款的限制  SB 973–拥有 100 名或以上员工的雇主的新薪酬数据报告义务  SB 1383–加州家庭权利法案大幅扩展以涵盖 5 名或 5 名以上员工的企业  AB 1867–补充的 COVID-19 带薪病假将于 2020 年 12 月 31 日到期/小型雇主家庭假调解试点计划  AB 2017–员工有权指定带薪病假用于亲属护理  AB 2399–扩大加州带薪家庭假福利  AB 2992–扩大对犯罪或虐待员工受害者的保护  AB 1947–向加州劳动标准执行局（DLSE）提交投诉的时间延长至一年、且告密者报复索赔的主要原告可以请求取回合理的律师费  AB 3075–扩大《劳动法》判决的继受人责任  加州最低工资及 2021 年豁免员工加班工资起点提高

AB 685 –在工作场所暴露于 COVID-19、通知员工和严重违规众议院 685 号法案（AB 685）要求雇主对 COVID-19 事件立即采取行动。雇主必须向在工作场所“可能曝露于 COVID-19”的所有雇员发出书面通知。所需的通知必须在雇主收到工作场所中的一个人被检测出感染 COVID19 或受到特定隔离令规范的后一个工作日内提供。通知必须说明雇员“可能曝露于 COVID-19”、提供有关个人根据联邦、州或地方法律可能享有的福利的信息，包括工人补偿、带薪病假以及反报复和反歧视保护、并根据 Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

美国疾病控制和预防中心（CDC）指南提供雇主计划实施和完成的消毒和安全计划的相关信息。通知必须以通常用于向员工传达就业相关信息的方式发送，并应使用英语和大多数员工都能理解的语言作成。通知中不应包括潜在感染者的姓名或其他身份信息，也不应以其他方式向员工披露。通知必须保留三年以备记录。最后，如果有权获得通知的雇员由工会等唯一代表代表时，雇主必须向雇员代表提供包含 Cal/OSHA 表格 300 中要求的信息的通知。 AB 685 还要求雇主在“疫情爆发”或“疫情重大爆发”的情况下向当地卫生部门发出通知。在得知 1）在工作场所 14 天内发生了 3 起或 3 起以上的 COVID-19 病例（疫情爆发）或 2）在工作场所 30 天内发生了 20 起或 20 起以上的 COVID-19 病例（疫情重大爆发）后的 48 小时内，雇主必须将此类事件通知当地卫生部门。向当地卫生部门发出的通知必须包括受疫情影响的名称、人数、职业和工作地点，包括工作地点的营业地址和北美行业分类系统（NAICS）代码。一旦疫情爆发，必须将所有之后在工地确诊的 COVID-19 通知当地卫生部门。值得注意的是，加州职业安全和健康管理局（Cal/OSHA）现在被允许发布与 COVID-19 相关的禁止使用令（OPU）。从 2021 年 1 月 1 日到 2023 年 1 月 1 日，Cal/OSHA 可以关闭使员工暴露于有与 COVID-19 感染相关的立即危险的整个工作场所或特定工作场所区域。禁止使用令可以禁止进入特定的工作场所或禁止使用特定的设备或工艺，且现在可以根据 AB 685 更快地发布 — 发布处罚通知之前，无需先发出潜在“严重违规”的处罚前预先通知。

加州职业安全与健康管理局关于 COVID-19 预防和测试的应急规定自 2020 年 11 月 30 日起生效，且在永久性法规起草的同时，加州职业安全与健康管理局（Cal/OSHA）要求加州几乎所有雇主实施一项针对特定场所的书面 COVID-19 预防计划。加州/职业安全与健康管理局的紧急规定（请见之前的 Holland & Knight 提示文章 “加州职业安全与健康管理局针对几乎所有加州雇主发布立即 COVID-19 预防要求规定”，2020 年 12 月 7 日）要求雇主对雇员实施培训和通知要求。 Cal/OSHA 紧急规定中的许多通知要求反映了 AB 685 实施的规定，包括要求提供有关可用假期和福利的信息。虽然 AB 685 主要针对 COVID-19 暴露后的要求，但 Cal/OSHA 法规要求雇主在 COVID-19 暴露前采取主动行动，包括通过强制评估预防系统和计划来预防 COVID-19 的暴露风险。值得注意的是，Cal/OSHA 的规定要求雇主在工作时间提供免费的 COVID-19 检测。雇主必须免费为在工作时间内可能接触过 COVID-19 的员工提供 COVID-19 检测。如果疫情爆发，雇主必须对工作场所的所有员工进行检测，但疫情爆发 14 天期间不在场的员工除外。这些员工必须在第一次检测后一周再进行检测，并每周再重新测试直到疫情结束。如果发生疫情重大爆发，必须每周对 30 天内出现于工作场所的所有员工进行两次检测（除非当地卫生部门建议更频繁的检测）。

SB 1159 – COVID-19 员工赔偿推定参议院第 1159 号法案（SB-159）将可赔偿工伤扩大到包括 COVID-19 疾病，这可能导致雇员根据加州无过错工人赔偿制度提出的索赔数量增加。根据 SB 1159，如果员工 1）在上班后 14 天内检测呈阳性或被诊断为感染 COVID-19，且 2）该员工在 2020 年 3 月 19 日至 2020 年 7 月 5 日期间上班，或该员工在 2020 年 7 月 6 日之后的“疫情爆发期”（如《劳动法》第 3212.88（m）（4）条所定义）内上班，COVID-19 疾病被推定是由于雇佣过程中发生的伤害，因此雇员有资格享受工人补偿福利。工伤推定可以用证据反驳；没有证据的，推定具有约束力。虽然雇主和保险人通常有 90 天的时间来决定是否接受或拒绝工人的赔偿要求，但如果在提出索赔的 30 天内没有拒绝 COVID-19 有关的疾病的索赔，则推定该疾病可予赔偿。

对 COVID-19 检测呈阳性或诊断为感染 COVID-19 的员工，应在诊断后 15 天内获得临时残疾证明，并在诊断后的前 45 天内每 15 天重新认证一次。值得注意的是，临时伤残补助金在员工用完专门为 COVID-19 提供的带薪病假福利后才可支付。如果雇主知道或应合理可知雇员的 COVID-19 检测呈阳性，雇主应在三个工作日内向劳工赔偿索赔管理人报告 1）雇员检测呈阳性，2）阳性检测日期，日期为采集样本进行检测的日期，3）阳性检测前 14 天雇员的工作地点地址，以及 4）在该雇员最后一次在该特定工作地点工作的日期前 45 天内，在该特定工作地点工作的最高雇员人数。雇主不得透露雇员的姓名或其他身份信息，除非雇员已经提出工人赔偿要求。故意提交虚假或误导性信息、或不提交信息，雇主或提交者将受到最高 10,000 美元的民事处罚。

行政命令暂停《员工调整和再培训通知法》（CAL-WARN）中关于大规模裁员、搬迁或终止前 60 天的通知要求加文·纽森州长于 2020 年 3 月 17 日发布行政命令，在符合某些条件的情况下，暂停加州《员工调整和再培训通知法》（Cal-WARN）的 60 天通知义务并追溯至 2020 年 3 月 4 日。（请参见之前的 Holland & Knight 提示文章 “加州宣布紧急暂停某些 Cal WARN 法案条款”，2020 年 3 月 19 日）。Cal-WARN 60 天通知要求的暂停一直有效，直到纽森州长于 2020 年 3 月 4 日宣布的紧急状态结束。尽管 60 天的通知要求被暂停，雇主仍然必须向雇员提供“尽可能多的通知”，告知即将发生的裁员、解雇或搬迁。除其他必要的通知内容外，发给员工的通知必须包括有关失业保险可用性的具体声明。加州劳动和劳动力发展局（LWDA）已经就这些通知要求向雇主发布了指南。

AB 2257–对 AB 5 的修改和额外适用排除规定，以保护独立承包商关系毫无疑问，在最近的加州劳动和就业法历史上最重要的变化之一是 AB 5 和采用“ABC”测试，以确定在大多数情况下，一个独立的承包商事实上是承包商或雇员。（请参见之前的 Holland & Knight 提示文章 “新加州法律编纂并扩展了独立承包商身份的严格 ABC 测试”，2019 年 9 月 25 日）。众议院 2257 号法案（AB 2257）主要在 ABC 测试中增加了某些行业的豁免，并修改了其他豁免。 AB 2257 旨在通过排除更多行业适用 ABC 测试的规定、扩大现有豁免和创建新的豁免来解决批评者认为的 AB 5 过度适用的问题。（请参见之前的 Holland & Knight 提示文章 “加州新法律将一些行业排除在“ABC”独立承包商测试之外”，2020 年 9 月 9 日）。这项立法除其他外，增加了对美术家、自由撰稿人、翻译人员、编辑、顾问、制作人、复印编辑、插画师、保险承保人、房地产估价师、房屋检查员、提供专业咨询服务的人以及涉及创作、营销、推广或销售录音或音乐作品传作的某些职业、及为单一订婚现场表演活动的音乐人和其他表演艺术家的豁免。AB 2257 还修改了对摄影师、摄影记者、摄像师和照片编辑的豁免。值得注意的是，AB 2257 扩大了狭义创建的企业对企业豁免，允许两个独资企业建立承包关系。虽然 AB 2257 是 AB 5 的一个改进，但它仍然没有解决哪些行业豁免 AB 5 适用的本质问题。例如，AB 2257 没有为那些公司作为平台将乘客或货物与可用的承包商联系起来运输和科技公司提供任何处理安排。

AB 2143–放宽了就业和解协议中“禁止再雇用”条款的限制目前，于 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效的加州民事诉讼法第 1002.5 条禁止和解协议中的“不得再雇用”条款。这些 “禁止再雇用”规定防止、禁止或以其他方式限制雇员今后在雇主或相关实体就业。当雇员向法院或行政机构向雇主提出索赔，或通过某种形式的替代性争议解决（ADR）方式或雇主内部投诉程序提出投诉时，这些规定在和解协议中被禁止。这项禁止“不得再雇用”的规定不适用于遣散协议。当雇主作出前雇员从事性骚扰或性侵犯的“善意裁定”时，也是这项禁令的一个例外。众议院 2143 号法案（AB 2143）略微修改了加州民事诉讼法第 1002.5 条。具体而言，它要求受害的前雇员必须善意地提出索赔，才能适用禁止“不得再雇用”的规定。它还扩大了这一“禁止再雇用”的例外，允许不得再雇员从事任何犯罪行为的先前雇员，而不是将例外限制在性骚扰或性侵犯。最后，AB 2143 澄清，为了符合“善意裁定”例外，雇主的裁定必须在受害人提出索赔或投诉之前作出并作成记录。

SB 973 – 拥有 100 名或以上员工的雇主的新薪酬数据报告义务为了解决薪酬不平等问题，参议院第 973 号法案（SB 973）要求雇员人数在 100 人或以上的雇主以及根据联邦法律要求提交年度联邦雇主信息报告（EEO-1）的雇主向加州公平就业和住房部（DFEH）提交年度薪酬数据报告。报告必须包括 10 个联邦确定的工作类别及其年收入落在美国劳工统计局在职业就业统计调查中使用的工资范围内中的雇员人数及工作时数并按种族、族裔和性别划分。雇主必须在 2021 年 3 月 31 日前及其其后每年向 DFEH 提交其薪酬数据报告。DFEH 已经开始为雇主发布指导，包括澄清在确定是否达到 100 名雇员的门槛时，雇主必须计算所有雇员，包括兼职雇员、休假雇员和加州以外的雇员。DFEH 还确认，雇主提交的数据报告必须包括在加州工作和/或分配到加州机构的雇员，包括在加州以外远程工作的雇员。DFEH 打算在其网站上创建一个雇主提交门户，雇主可以在那里提交所需的报告。DFEH 还打算发布标准表格，供雇主在提交所需数据时使用，尽管它已确认雇主可以向 DFEH 提交联邦 EEO-1 报告，以履行其报告义务，只要该报告包含 SB 973 要求的相同或基本相似的薪酬数据信息。DFEH 正继续向雇主滚动发布指南。

SB 1383–加州家庭权利法案大幅扩展以涵盖 5 名或 5 名以上员工的企业加州家庭权利法案（CFRA）目前要求 50 名或以上雇员的雇主向符合条件的加州雇员提供 12 个工作周的受保护家庭和医疗假。如果加州员工 1）在雇主工作至少 12 个月、2）在过去 12 个月内为雇主工作至少 1,250 小时、 3）在距该工作地点 75 英里范围内有 50 名或以上员工的工作地点工作，则他们有资格享受 CFRA 假期。目前，员工可根据加州家庭权利法案（CFRA）的规定，在以下情况下休受保护的假：1）生孩子、领养孩子或安排领养孩子、2）照顾有严重健康状况的配偶、父母或孩子、或 3）员工从自身严重健康状况康复。 CFRA 及其法规对 CFRA 休假管理、福利延续、员工通知、医疗证明以及与其他受保护休假的互动提供了复杂的规定。

从 2021 年 1 月 1 日开始，CFRA 的探亲假和病假要求将扩展到有 5 名或 5 名以上雇员的小型企业，无论雇主工作场所的规模如何。（请参见之前的 Holland & Knight 提示文章 “小企业必须在 2021 年给予符合条件的加州员工家庭和医疗假”，2020 年 9 月 28 日）。然而，要符合 CFRA 假期的资格，加州员工必须 1）在雇主至少工作 12 个月、2）在过去 12 个月内为雇主工作至少 1,250 小时。此外，SB 1383 通过允许 CFRA 休假照顾患有严重疾病的祖父母、孙子女或家庭伴侣，大了休假权利。对“儿童”的定义作了修改，取消了对儿童年满 18 岁或成年受扶养儿童的要求。此外，“子女”还包括雇员家庭伴侣的子女。 SB 1383 使 CFRA 与《联邦家庭医疗休假法》（FMLA）更加一致，允许 CFRA 休假，因为与适用的现役的美国军队的“符合条件的紧急情况”或与美国军队的员工配偶、家庭伴侣、子女或父母关于适用的现役责任的征招有关。在 2021 年 1 月 1 日之前，如果有权享受 CFRA 假期的父母都受雇于同一个雇主，雇主不需要为父母双方因孩子的出生、领养或寄养而提供超过 12 个工作周的 CFRA 假期。SB1383 取消了这一豁免，而雇主将被要求向每位家长提供最多 12 个工作周的 CFRA 假期。在 SB 1383 之前，处其他之外，如果雇员是有薪雇员并且在距雇员工作地点 75 英里范围内雇用的雇员中是工资最高的 10%，雇主可以拒绝将从休假返回的员工回复到相同或类似职位的职位。这通常被称为“关键员工”豁免。SB 1383 取消了这一豁免。最后，SB 1383 废除了加州新的父母休假法（NPLA），该法目前规定，加州雇有 20 至 49 名雇员的加州合格雇主的雇员可享受受保护的婴儿关系假。一旦 CFRA 的休假权利（已经包括婴儿关系假）扩展到小雇主，NPLA 就没有必要了。

AB 1867–补充 COVID-19 带薪病假于 2020 年 12 月 31 日到期 / 小雇主家庭假调解试点计划自 2020 年 9 月 19 日起生效，众议院第 1867 号法案（AB 1867）要求在全国范围内雇用 500 名或 500 名以上员工的私营雇主为加州员工提供额外的带薪病假，以应对与 COVID-19 相关的缺勤，包括包括员工有以下情况： 1）受联邦、州或地方检疫 COVID-19 相关命令的约束、2）由医疗保健专业人员建议因 COVID-19 相关问题进行隔离、或 3）因与 COVID-19 潜在传播相关的健康问题被雇主禁止工作。它还编纂了 N-51-20 号行政命令，该命令为食品部门的工人提供了额外的带薪病假，并要求在食品设施工作的雇员每 30 分钟和根据需要洗手一次。 AB1867 还将根据《家庭第一冠状病毒应对法案》（FFCRA）提供的福利适用于雇佣医疗保健提供者或应急人员的任何雇主。FFCRA 为这些雇主提供了豁免。根据 AB 1867，全职员工、或计划每周工作至少 40 小时的员工、及离开家或住所工作的员工有权享受 80 小时的 COVID-19 附加带薪病假。非全日制雇员有权享受相当于两周或 14 天的附加带薪病假，但实际数额将取决于雇员的工作时间。除少数例外情况外，此假期是员工有资格获得的其他假期的补充假期。员工可以选择使用 COVID-19 附加带薪病假的时间，在其他形式的带薪休假之前可以使用。雇主不得要求雇员在本 COVID-19 补充带薪病假之前或作为替代使用其他带薪休假、休假或休假。

COVID-19 补充带薪病假应按照以下两项中的最高标准进行补偿：1）雇员最后一个工资期的正常工资率；2）州最低工资；或 3）当地最低工资，尽管根据上述任何计算，工资上限为每天 511 美元，总计 5,110 美元。雇主必须展示海报、或以其他方式发布通知，说明 COVID-19 附加带薪病假的性质。加州劳工专员已经发布了一份通知范本，雇主可以将其用于这些目的。雇主还必须向每位雇员提供通知，说明每个发薪期可享受的 COVID-19 补充带薪病假的金额。AB1867 规定的 COVID-19 附加带薪病假要求将于 2020 年 12 月 31 日到期，或在 FFCRA 的任何联邦延期到期时到期，以较晚者为准。如果法律在雇员休 COVID-19 附加带薪病假期间到期，雇员有权继续休他或她本应享有的全部 COVID-19 附加带薪病假。截至本提示文章发布之日，国会尚未延长 FFCRA。最后，与法律提供的 COVID-19 救济无关，AB 1867 创建了一个 DFEH 小雇主家庭休假调解试点计划，适用于拥有 5 至 19 名雇员的雇主。根据这项新计划，符合条件的小雇主收到 DFEH 根据《公平就业和住房法》（FEHA）提出的索赔而发出的起诉信后，可以在收到后 30 天内通过 DFEH 请求调解。经用人单位提出调解请求，在调解结束前，禁止劳动者向法院提起民事诉讼。没有要求当事人在调解时解决索赔。DFEH 的调解试点计划将一直有效到 2024 年 1 月 1 日。

AB 2017 – 有权指定带薪病假的员工目前，加州法律允许雇员使用其累计和可用病假的一半来照顾家庭成员的疾病或预防性护理。禁止雇主因为雇员请病假而歧视他们。众议院第 2017 号法案（AB 2017）修改了加州《劳动法》第 233 条，规定员工有权自行决定将病假指定为亲属护理，即照顾生病的家庭成员。具体而言，这项法律旨在防止雇主将雇员的病假指定为亲属照管，这会故意或错误地耗尽雇员的亲属照管假。因此，根据 AB 2017，员工有权指定他们希望休哪种类型的病假。违反本法规定，受害员工有权获得复职和实际损害赔偿、或一天的工资，以较大者为准，并获得适当的公平救济。

AB 2399 – 加州带薪家庭假福利的扩大加州的带薪家庭休假计划为工人提供工资替代福利，让他们请假照顾重病家庭成员或建立婴儿关系。2018 年，带薪探亲假计划扩大到包括参加与美国军队中配偶、家庭伴侣、父母或子女的参保现役或应召现役相关的合格紧急情况的适用休假。虽然这项带薪探亲假计划于 2018 年颁布，但将于 2021 年 1 月 1 日生效。与带薪探亲假计划的扩展相关，众议院第 2399 号法案（AB 2399）修改了《失业保险法》第 3302 节和第 3307 条，以便进行一些明确的修改和补充，包括定义的条款和确认符合条件的紧急情况所需的文件。

AB 2992 – 扩大对犯罪或虐待员工受害者的保护现行法律禁止雇主解雇、歧视或报复遭受家庭暴力、性侵犯或跟踪的雇员，因为他们请假获得或试图获得临时限制令、限制令或其他禁令救济，或帮助确保健康，受害人或其子女的安全或福利。现行法律还禁止拥有 25 名或 25 名以上雇员的雇主解雇、歧视或报复因其他特定原因请假的雇员。众议院第 2992 号法案（AB 2992）扩展了这些保护，将“受害者”广义地定义为 1）跟踪、家庭暴力或性攻击的受害者、2）造成身体伤害或精神伤害和身体伤害威胁的犯罪的受害者、以及 3）其直系亲属（如定义）因犯罪直接死亡的人。AB 2992 将“犯罪”定义为“政府法典第 13951 条规定的犯罪或公共犯罪，无论任何人是否因犯罪而被逮捕、起诉或定罪。”

现行法律还规定，如果发生计划外缺勤，如果雇员在缺勤后的一段合理时间内向雇主提供规定的证明，雇主不得对雇员采取行动。AB 2992 允许此类证明包括被害人辩护律师的文件以及合理证明犯罪或虐待行为发生的任何形式的文件，如雇员或代表雇员行事的个人签署的书面声明。

AB 1947 – 向加州劳动标准执行局（DLSE）提交投诉的时间延长至一年，告密者报复索赔的主要原告可以请求取回合理的律师费目前，如果员工认为自己违反了加州劳工专员实施的任何法律而受到歧视，他们可以在被指控的违反行为发生后六个月内向加州劳工标准执行局（DLSE）提出投诉。AB 1947 将这一期限延长至涉嫌违规后一年。众议院第 1947 号法案（AB 1947）还修订了加州的告密者报复法，即加州劳动法第 1102.5 条，而该条目前没有规定取回律师费。AB 1947 授权法院向根据第 1102.5 条提起成功诉讼的原告支付合理的律师费。

AB 3075 – 扩大《劳动法》判决的继受人责任众议院第 3075 号法案（AB 3075）在加州《劳动法》中增加了新的第 200.3 条，其中规定：“判决债务人的继受人应依据上诉期限到期后且没有提出上诉的最终判决对判决债务人的任何前员工支付的任何工资、损害赔偿金和罚款负责。“继受人”是指一公司其 1）使用与判决债务人基本相同的设施或基本相同的劳动力提供与判决债务人所提供基本相同的服务、2）拥有与判决债务人基本相同的管控劳动关系的所有人或管理人、3）雇用直接管控判决债务人的工资、工时或工作条件或受影响的劳动力的任何人作为管理代理人、以及 4）在同一行业经营企业，并且该企业有与判决债务人的所有人、合伙人、高管或董事的最近亲属担任其所有人、合伙人、高管或董事。 AB 3075 还增加了公司在向加州州务卿提交信息声明时的新义务，以说明“任何成员或任何经理是否拥有由劳动标准执行部门或法院所发布判定有违反任何工资令或劳动法规定的没有存在上诉情况的尚未被履行的最终判决。”

2021 年加州最低工资和豁免员工加班工资起点提高在 2015-2016 年立法会议上颁布的参议院第 3 号法案（SB 3）规定了到 2023 年将提高的最低工资的时间表。从 2021 年 1 月 1 日开始，对于雇用 26 名或以上雇员的雇主，最低工资标准将从每小时 13 美元提高到到每小时 14 美元，豁免员工年度工资起点将从 54,080 美元提高到 58,240 美元。对于雇员人数不超过 25 人的雇主，最低工资标准将从每小时 12 美元提高到 13 美元，豁免员工年度工资起点将从 49,920 美元提高到 54,080 美元。

A Primer on Attorney-Client Privilege: Part 2 By Charles A. Weiss This article continues our series on attorney-client privilege. In the prior edition of our newsletter, we presented the basic rule of attorney-client privilege as generally applied in the United States, and addressed two problems seen commonly in the case of corporate clients. (See Holland & Knight's China Practice Newsletter: January-February 2021.) The first problem concerned the role of intermediaries or advisors who are involved in a substantive but informal manner in the company's communications with its lawyers. The second problem concerned the distinction between legal advice and business advice, and the issues created by lawyers who wear two hats (legal and business). This article examines the issue of cross-border privilege, such as how a U.S. court applies attorney-client privilege when the communications at issue are between a non-U.S. lawyer and his or her client. Lawyers involved in drafting, interpreting or litigating commercial contracts are thoroughly familiar with choiceof-law provisions, which specify what jurisdiction's law will govern. In contract cases when the governing law is specified, U.S. courts will generally adhere to the parties' choice, especially in cases involving commercial agreements, when the parties were represented by counsel and had the opportunity to negotiate and bargain for the choice of law. By contrast, the choice of law to be applied to claims of attorney-client privilege in cross-border cases is rarely so simple. First, many disputes do not involve a contract between the litigants, such as, for example, patent or trade-secret cases, antitrust disputes and other types of business torts. Second, even when a dispute does involve a contract, the contract's choice-of-law provision will not necessarily be applicable to claims of attorneyclient privilege, which are collateral to the terms of the contract itself. Accordingly, a court hearing such cases will independently determine what law to apply to claims of attorney-client privilege. Indeed, this is true even in cases that involve solely U.S. litigants, as when a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New Jersey that obtained advice from a New York lawyer is litigating in a Florida court against a Nevada corporation with its headquarters in Arizona that obtained advice from a California lawyer. Happily for the sanity of the litigators, and the legal budgets of the litigants, cases like this will more often than not involve what is referred to as a "false conflict," meaning that the various states' rules of privilege are either not materially different, or that the differences that do exist would not affect the outcome of the privilege issue. In the case of a false conflict, the court does not have to decide what law applies because the result would be the same under all potential choices. A false conflict may also exist in a cross-border dispute, but oftentimes one party will perceive an advantage in raising a choice-of-law issue. For example, a U.S. company that has been advised only by U.S. lawyers, which knows that its own privilege claims will be evaluated under the very protective U.S. standard, may assert that its non-U.S. adversary's privilege claims should be governed by less-protective laws of the adversary's own jurisdiction. On the other hand, a U.S. litigant may argue for the application of U.S. privilege rules if its non-U.S. adversary's legal communications would be protected under the laws of its home jurisdiction, but would not be protected under the U.S. privilege standards.

CHOICE OF LAW TESTS: "TOUCH BASE" APPROACH VERSUS "FUNCTIONAL" APPROACH Complicating matters, U.S. courts use to different tests, which will often result in different outcomes, to adjudicate cross-border privilege issues. Most often, court use the "touch base" approach, which asks which jurisdiction has the predominant interest in the confidentiality of the communications at issue. This will usually be the jurisdiction in which the lawyer and client entered into their relationship, or which was at the center of Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

the relationship when the communications occurred (these will often be the same). However, communications concerning U.S. legal proceedings will generally be found to "touch base" with the U.S. without regard to the nationality or location of the lawyer and client. Less commonly, courts use the "functional" approach, which starts with the laws and rules of the non-U.S. jurisdiction in which the communications took place, but seeks to harmonize them with the realities of legal practice in both the non-U.S. jurisdiction and in the U.S. As will be seen, the "touch base" approach is more likely than the "functional" approach to result in a holding that privilege does not apply.

APPLICATION OF THE "TOUCH BASE" APPROACH At issue in Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 979 F. Supp. 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), was the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain discovery in a civil case of documents withheld by the Bank of China on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The documents at issue contained communications between the bank's in-house counsel and its business personnel. For purpose of its analysis, the court separately addressed communications that occurred before or after the date on which plaintiffs sent the bank a demand letter. Under the "touch base" approach, China had the predominant interest in the protectability of communications that occurred prior to the date of plaintiffs' demand letter. This followed because the relationship existed in China, the communications occurred in China, and the communications did not concern U.S. legal proceedings or demands made under U.S. law. By contrast, communications that occurred after the date of plaintiffs' letter and concerned the plaintiffs' U.S. claims were held to "touch base" with the U.S. because they pertained in part to a claim made under U.S. law, even though plaintiffs' did not file suit in the U.S. until three years later. Although the court applied Chinese law to the first group of communications and U.S. law to the second group of communications, the result was the same: privilege did not apply. With respect to the first group of communications, which were held to touch base with China and thus would be governed by Chinese law, the court found that China did not recognize attorney-client privilege. Although the court acknowledged that Chinese law imposed on Chinese lawyers a duty of confidentiality, that duty was an ethical obligation and but not coupled with a law of evidence that made evidence of attorney-client communications inadmissible in court. In this regard, it observed that the provisions of Chinese law that authorized courts to compel testimony, Articles 67 and 72 of the Civil Procedure code, did not prohibit the courts from compelling testimony concerning attorney-client communications. It rejected the bank's argument that a Chinese court would compel such testimony, holding that the governing standard was whether a Chinese court could do so. Accordingly, because the court determined that the communications "touched base" with China and would not be protected under Chinese law, it compelled the bank to produce them. Turning to the second category of communications, those which occurred after the bank received plaintiffs' demand letter and that concerned the plaintiffs' U.S. claim, the court applied U.S. privilege law because they "touched base" with the U.S. Here, the bank's privilege claim was rejected because its in-house counsel were not licensed as attorneys, and such licensure was required under the U.S. rules of attorney-client privilege. It rejected the bank's argument that its in-house counsel served as the "functional equivalent" of lawyers and were permitted by Chinese law to give legal advice. It observed that U.S. law justifies privilege because the authority of a lawyer "derives from her position as a member of the bar." Id. at 495. This was not the case for in-house legal advisors in China, who were not required to be members of the bar. "While the Chinese legal system may be developing, the distinctions between lawyer and in-house counsel are clear and presumably exist for a good reason. I see no compelling reason to ... create a 'functional equivalency' test for the invocation of attorney-client privilege when applying United States law." Id. Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Another example of the "touch base" approach, Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), concerned communications between a Swedish company and its outside counsel in Korea concerning Korean legal proceedings. The court began its analysis by finding that these communications "touched base" with Korea and would in the first instance be governed by Korean law. At the time, Korea did not recognize attorney-client privilege. However, it also had no mechanism under which a litigant or court could compel a Korean lawyer to testify to communications with his or her client. Thus, although the communications were not formally protected under Korean law, their confidentiality was protected as a practical matter because there was no way to compel their disclosure. Finding that application of Korean substantive law to decline a recognition of privilege would lead to an unreasonable outcome if applied in a U.S. litigation, in which the rules of procedure permit broad discovery in stark contrast to Korean procedure which did not permit such discovery, the court held that privilege should apply to prohibit discovery of the communications. Although this decision is seemingly at odds with the Wultz case, they can be distinguished by the Astra court's finding that the Korean courts could not compel disclosure, as compared to the Wultz court's finding that even if the Chinese courts would not compel disclosure, they had the legal authority to do so.

APPLICATION OF THE "FUNCTIONAL" APPROACH As can be inferred from the court's rejection of a "functional" approach in the Wultz case, the "functional" approach is more likely to support a claim of privilege because it looks to the function and duties of the person acting in the role that would be filled in the U.S. by a lawyer, as opposed to that person's formal status or licensure under the laws of his or her non-U.S. jurisdiction. An example of the pure application of the "functional" approach can be found in Renfield Corp. v. E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A., 98 F.R.D. 442 (D. Del. 1982). At issue in that case were communications between a French company and its in-house legal advisors. French law recognized two categories of lawyers, corresponding roughly to the more familiar categories of barrister and solicitor under English law. The "avocat" was similar to a barrister: he provided legal advice and could appear in court, but could not be an employee of a company. The "conseil juridique," similar to a solicitor, provided legal advice but could not appear in court, and if not selfemployed could be employed only by or in a firm of conseils juridiques. Thus, while a legally trained person employed by a company as a legal advisor could not fit into either category, such persons were permitted under French law to provide legal advice to their employer. Applying the "functional" approach, the court found that the company's communications with such persons would be accorded protection under attorney-client privilege even though privilege would not be recognized under French law, and a strict application of U.S. law would refuse the application of privilege because the in-house legal advisors were not licensed attorneys. Id. at 444 ("[T]he requirement is a functional one of whether the individual is competent to render legal advice and is permitted by law to do so. French 'in-house counsel' certainly meet this test; like their American counterparts, they have legal training and are employed to give legal advice to corporate officials on matters of legal significance to the corporation.").

ISSUES WITH IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS As can be seen from the cases discussed above, and as discussed in our previous article in this series, the difficulty of successfully asserting a claim of attorney-client privilege is greater in the case of in-house attorneys. Most often, communications between an non-U.S. company and its in-house legal advisors will "touch base" with the country in which they are located. If that country does not recognize attorney-client privilege for in-house legal advisors, it will be difficult to convince a U.S. court that it should extend U.S.-style protection. Roughly stated, the "touch base" approach will start and end with the premise that the company would not have expected such communications to be protected by its own country's legal system. This result follows from the central assumption behind American-style privilege rules, which is that clients will be inhibited Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

from communicating freely and candidly with their lawyers if robust privilege did not exist. By operating without this high degree of attorney-client privilege, non-U.S. legal systems have shown either that this assumption does not hold, or that the downside of privilege (inhibiting the search for the truth) is felt to outweigh its benefits. Some jurisdictions that generally recognize attorney-client privilege do not include in-house lawyers within the scope of protection. For example, the court in the Renfield case ruled in favor of the privilege claim because the French company's in-house lawyers were acting as the functional equivalent of an American-licensed attorney, even though France did not recognize them as such. Had the court applied the "touch base" test instead of the "functional" test, the assertion of privilege would have failed regardless of whether the communications touched base with France (because French law did not recognize them as attorneys) or with the U.S. (because even though they were permitted by French law to render legal advice, they were not licensed attorneys). More recently, the federal court in Delaware has in several cases rejected claims of privilege asserted by Indian companies for communications with their in-house legal advisors, because India provides that attorneys may not be employees of their clients, such that the licensure of attorneys who go inhouse is effectively suspended during the period in which they remain employees of the company. The Wultz case also illustrates what can seem like a "heads I win, tails you lose" rule for communications with in-house lawyers. Recall first that privilege was held not to apply for communications that "touched base" with China because attorney-client privilege was not recognized by Chinese law. But even for communications that "touched base" with the U.S. because they concerned U.S. proceedings, the privilege claim failed because the in-house counsel were not licensed as attorneys as required for a valid assertion of privilege under U.S. law.

ISSUES WITH PATENT AGENTS AND PATENT ATTORNEYS Given the highly international nature of patent procurement and enforcement, cross-border privilege issues often arise in patent infringement litigation. Here, the usual challenges of determining the application of privilege can be increased by issues of nomenclature and licensure. In the U.S., "patent attorneys" or "patent lawyers" are fully qualified and licensed attorneys-at-law, permitted to appear in court and provide their clients with the full range of legal services. In addition to being licensed by one or more states as attorneys, they are separately licensed by the national government to represent clients before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in patent matters, such as the submission and prosecution of patent applications. Less common are "patent agents," who are not legally trained, are not licensed as attorneys and hold only the license to represent clients before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in patent matters. Unlike a patent attorney, a patent agent is not authorized to advise clients on questions of infringement or validity of patents held by others, or in connection with license agreements, because such matters are considered to be the practice of law. Because their limited scope of practice makes it harder to represent clients on their own, most patent agents are employed by law firms or companies, and work to a greater or lesser degree in collaboration with patent attorneys. By contrast, most persons outside the U.S. with the title "patent attorney" are not attorneys at law. For example, a German patentanwalt will be referred to in English as a "patent attorney" but has a scope of practice that is broader than that of a U.S. patent agent but not as broad as that of a German rechtsanwalt (attorney at law) or a U.S. patent attorney. Because the viability of a privilege claim under the "touch base" approach may turn on whether the jurisdiction in which the communication took place would be recognized as privileged under the laws of that jurisdiction, it can be necessary to determine the nature of license held by non-U.S. persons with the title of "patent attorney," because their entitlement to privilege may not be the same as that of an attorney at law. Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

REDUCING RISKS Most of the strategies to enhance the likelihood of successfully asserting attorney-client privilege in U.S. litigation with respect to non-U.S. communications will come at an economic cost. To be cost efficient, one should start by considering the potential importance of winning a privilege dispute in the event of U.S. litigation. For example, even U.S. companies that are sensitive to privilege issues may use non-attorney personnel for tasks that are legal in nature but not particularly sensitive, such as keeping track of and reporting on the terms of contracts. Many times, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the added cost of engaging a lawyer to handle certain issues just to enhance a privilege claim in the event of an unforeseeable dispute is unwarranted if the task can be adequately handled by a well-trained employee who is not a lawyer. However, for matters that are sensitive, potentially contentious, of high economic value or risk, or implicate laws or regulations that carry a stiff penalty for noncompliance, the additional cost of taking steps to enhance the viability of a subsequent privilege claim may be money well spent. One should start with an assumption that a U.S. court will apply the "touch base" test to non-U.S. communications. Thus, because communications may be found to "touch base" with either the non-U.S. jurisdiction or with the U.S., it is prudent to work toward satisfying both the local standards and the U.S. standards. It is beyond the scope of this article to suggest ways to comply with non-U.S. standards for attorney-client privilege, beyond the reminder that some jurisdictions do not recognize privilege for communications with inhouse legal advisors. If this is the case in the reader's jurisdiction, it may be necessary to engage outside counsel to augment the role of in-house counsel. To satisfy the U.S. privilege standards if a court finds that the communications touch base with the U.S., we repeat from the first article in this series the general rule that governs attorney-client privilege under U.S. law. Specifically, privilege applies to communications 1) between a lawyer and client, 2) in confidence, and 3) for the purpose of requesting or receiving legal advice. It will be the rare case that communications with outside counsel who are licensed as attorneys-at-law in the jurisdiction in which they practice will not satisfy the U.S. standard for privilege to attach. Accordingly, the most reliable way to ensure that privilege attaches to legal communications in those instances where the availability of privilege is deemed valuable is to engage outside counsel. Our next article will address the common-interest and joint-defense doctrines, which provide in certain circumstances that a client's disclosure of privileged communications to a third party is not a waiver of privilege. As will be seen from that article, care must be taken before relying on these doctrines, because their scope is not always as broad as often believed.

律师-客户特权保护问题入门：第二部分原文作者：Charles A. Weiss 本文是接续我们关于律师-客户特权保护问题系列的文章。在上一期的文章中，我们介绍了在美国普遍适用的律师-客户特权保护问题的基本规则，并讨论了在公司客户案例中常见的两个问题 (请参见 2021 年 1、2 月份 Holland & Knight China Practice Newsletter)。第一个问题涉及以实质性但非正式的方式参与公司与其律师沟通的中间人士或顾问的角色。第二个问题涉及法律咨询和商业咨询之间的区别、以及因律师扮演两个角色（法律和商业）所产生的问题。本文将探讨跨境特权保护的问题，例如当非美国律师与其客户之间的沟通成为争议点时，美国法院如何适用律师 -客户特权保护规则。参与商业合同的起草、解释或诉讼的律师对准据法条款应该非常熟悉，该条款规定将适用那一个司法管辖区的法律。在规定了准据法的合同案件中，美国法院通常会依照当事人的选择，特别是在客户由律师代表并有机会就准据法条款进行谈判和协商的涉及商业协议的案件中。相比之下，在跨境案件中主张适用律师-客户特权保护应适用那一个法律很少如此简单。首先，许多纠纷不涉及当事人之间的合同，例如，专利或商业秘密案件、反垄断纠纷和其他类型的商业侵权。其次，即使纠纷确实涉及合同，合同的准据法条款也不一定对律师-客户特权保护的主张适用，而该等特权主张只是因合同条款而附带产生。因此，审理此类案件的法院将独立决定就律师-客户特权保护的主张应适用何种法律。事实上，即使是仅涉及美国诉讼当事人的案件也是如此，例如总部位于新泽西州并从纽约律师处获得建议的特拉华州公司在佛罗里达州的法院起诉总部位于亚利桑那州并从加州律师处获得建议的内华达州公司时也是如此。令人欣慰的是，由于诉讼当事人的理智和对法律预算的考虑，这样的案件往往会涉及所谓的“假象冲突”，这意味着各州的特权规则要么没有实质性的不同、或者存在的差异不会影响特权问题的结果。在假象冲突的情况下，法院不需决定适用何种法律，因为在适用所有可能的法律时结果都是相同的。在跨境争端中也可能存在假象冲突，但通常一方会认为提出法律适用问题有好处。例如，一家只接受美国律师建议的美国公司，如果知道自己的特权主张将根据提供高度保护的美国标准进行评估，则可以主张其非美国对造的特权主张应受到提供较低度保护的对造本国司法管辖区的法律所管辖。另一方面，如果美国诉讼当事人的非美国对造的法律沟通将受其本国司法管辖区的法律保护，但依美国特权保护的标准将不受保护，则美国诉讼当事人可能会主张要求对其适用美国特权保护规则。

法律适用的测试方法：“联系”方法与“功能性”方法的对比更为复杂的是，美国法院使用不同的测试方法来裁决跨境特权问题往往导致不同的结果。大多数情况下，法院使用的是“联系”方法，即探究哪一个管辖区对所涉沟通的秘密性具有主要利益。这通常是律师和客户建立关系的司法管辖区、或者是发生沟通时具核心关系的司法管辖区（而这些司法管辖区经常是同一个）。然而，与美国法律程序有关的沟通通常会被视为与美国有“联系”，而不考虑律师和客户的国籍或所在地。较不常见的是，法院采用“功能性”方法，即从事件发生的沟通发生所在的非美国司法管辖区的法律和规则开始着手处理，但力求调和美国司法管辖区和非美国司法管辖区的法律实践现实。正如我们将看到的，“联系”方法比“功能性”方法更有可能导致判决不适用特权保护的情况。 Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

“联系”方法的应用在 Wultz 诉中国银行有限公司案中《联邦地区法院判例补编》第 979 卷第 479 页（S.D.N.Y.2013），争议在于原告试图在民事案件中要求揭露中国银行基于律师-客户特权保护原则而不予提供的文件。系争文件包含了银行内部律师与其业务人员之间的沟通。为了进行分析，法院对原告向银行发出律师函之日之前或之后发生的两类沟通进行不同处理。在“联系”方法下，中国对原告律师函日期之前发生的沟通的保护具有主要利益。这是因为这种关系存在于中国、沟通发生在中国、且沟通与美国法律诉讼或根据美国法律提出的要求无关。相比之下，在原告的信函日期之后发生且与原告索赔有关的沟通被认为与美国有“联系”，因为这些沟通部分涉及根据美国法律提出的索赔，尽管原告直到三年后才在美国提起诉讼。虽然美国法院对第个一类的沟通适用了中国法律，并对第二类的沟通适用了美国法律，但结果是一样的：即特权保护都不适用。关于第一类的沟通，它们被判定与中国有联系而应受中国法律管辖，且美国法院认为中国不承认律师-客户特权保护规则。尽管法院承认中国法律对中国律师规定了保密义务，但该义务是一项执业伦理规范义务而非与使律师客户的沟通成为呈堂证据的证据法连结在一起。在这方面，美国法院指出，《民事诉讼法》第 67 条和第 72 条等这些授权中国法院命令作证的中国法律条款并未禁止法院强制要求对涉及律师-客户特权保护的沟通作证。美国法院拒绝了银行所提出中国法院将不会强制要求进行该等作证的论点，认为决定的标准是中国法院是否将可以这样做。因此，由于美国法院判定沟通与中国有“联系“且将不受中国法律保护，美国法院强制中国银行对该等证据进行揭露。关于第二类沟通，即银行收到原告律师函后发生并涉及原告在美国提出的索赔的沟通，美国法院适用美国特权保护法律，因为这些沟通与美国有“联系”。在这里，银行的特权保护主张被被驳回，因为其内部律师没有获得律师执照，且该等资格是美国律师客户特权规则所要求的。美国法院拒绝了中国银行所提银行的内部法律顾问是与律师“功能性相当”的人员，并被中国法律允许来提供法律咨询。它指出，美国法律允许特权保护是因为律师的权力“源于他作为律师协会成员的地位”，同上，第 495 页。而中国的内部法律顾问并非如此，他们不需要成为律师协会的成员。“虽然中国的法律体系可能正在发展，但律师和内部律师之间的区别是很明显的，且存在该区别的理由应很充分。我看不出有什么令人信服的理由。。。。在适用美国法律时，需为律师-客户特权的使用创建一个“功能性相当”的测试。同上。另一个应用 “联系”方法的例子是来自于判决 Wultz 案的同一个法院的 Astra Aktiebolag 诉 Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 案，208 F.R.D.92（S.D.N.Y.2002），该案涉及一家瑞典公司与其在韩国的外部律师就韩国法律程序进行的沟通。法院在分析之初就认定，这些沟通与韩国“有联系”，一审将受韩国法律管辖。当时韩国不承认律师-客户特权保护规定。然而也不存在允许诉讼当事人或法院可以强迫韩国律师就与他的客户的沟通进行作证。因此尽管沟通没有受到韩国法律的正式保护，但因为没有办法强迫披露，它们的机密性实际上得到了保护。法院认为与韩国不允许揭露的程序完全相反，美国的程序规则允许宽广的揭露范围、如在美国诉讼适用韩国实体法律以拒绝承认特权保护将会导致不合理的结果，因此法院判决应适用特权保护以禁止对该等沟通进行揭露。虽然这个判决看起来与 Wultz 案的判决有所冲突，而不同之处在 Astra 案的法院认为韩国法院不可强制揭露，而相较之下，Wultz 案的法院认为即使如果中国法院不会强制要求揭露，中国法院有法律权限要求进行强制揭露。

“功能性”方法的应用从法院在 Wultz 案中拒绝“功能性”方法可以推断出 “功能性”方法更有可能支持特权保护的主张，因为它考虑该人担任的职能和义务是否在美国是由律师所担任，而非该人在其非美国司法管辖区法律下的正式身份或资格。在 Renfield Corp. 诉 E.Remy Martin & Co., S.A.案 98 F.R.D.442（D.Del. 1982) ，可以发现纯粹适用“功能性 ”方法的例子。该案的争议点是一家法国公司与其内部法律顾问之间的沟通。法国法律承认两类律师，大致相当于英国法律下更为常见的大律师和事务律师。“avocat”类似于一名大律师：他提供法律咨询，可以出庭，但不能是一家公司的雇员。“consell juridique”与事务律师类似，提供法律咨询，但不能出庭，且如非自雇外只能受雇于 consell juridique 事务所。因此，虽然一家公司雇用一名受过法律培训的法律顾问不属于这两个类别，但法国法律允许这些人向其雇主提供法律咨询。适用“功能性”方法，法院认为即使法国法律不承认这种特权，公司与这些人的沟通将受到律师-客户特权的保护，且严格适用美国法律会拒绝特权的适用，因为内部法律顾问不是具有执业资格的律师。同上，第 444 条（“这项要求是一项功能性要求，即个人是否有能力提供法律咨询，且法律是否允许这样做。法国的“内部法律顾问”当然符合这一标准；与美国同行一样，他们接受过法律培训，并受雇就对公司具有法律重要性的事项向公司管理人员提供法律咨询。”）。

内部律师的问题从上面讨论的案例可以看出，正如我们在本系列的前一篇文章中所讨论的，在内部律师的情况下，成功主张律师 -客户特权保护的难度更大。通常情况下，一家非美国公司与其内部法律顾问之间的沟通会与他们所在的国家有所“联系”。如果该国不承认内部法律顾问的律师-客户特权，那么就很难说服美国法院该扩大美国式的保护。概略地说，这种“联系”方法的出发点和目的都是这样一个前提，即该公司本来就不期待该等类沟通会受到本国法律体系的保护。这一结果源于美式特权保护规则背后的核心前提，即如果不存在强有力的特权，客户将无法与律师自由、坦诚地交流。而在没有这种高度律师-客户特权保护的情况下运作，非美国法律体系显示要么这种前提不成立，要么认为特权的负面作用（对寻求真相的限制）大于其好处。一些普遍承认律师-客户特权保护的司法管辖区不将内部律师纳入保护范围。例如，Renfield 案中的法院作出了有利于特权主张的裁决，因为法国公司的内部律师在职能上相当于一名具有执业资格的美国律师，尽管法国不承认他们的身份。如果法院采用“联系”测试而不是“功能性”测试，那么无论沟通是与法国（因为法国法律不承认他们是律师）还是与美国（因为即使法国法律允许他们提供法律咨询，他们不是具有执业资格的律师）有联系，特权的主张都会失败。最近，特拉华州联邦法院在数起案件中驳回了印度公司与内部法律顾问沟通的特权主张，因为印度规定律师不得是其客户的雇员，这样，内部律师的执照在其仍然作为公司雇员期间被有效地中止。

Wultz 案也说明了与内部律师沟通的“无论怎么做，结果都一样”的情况。首先回顾一下，由于中国法律不承认律师-客户特权，因此判决律师-客户特权不适用于与中国“联系”的沟通。但即使是因为涉及美国诉讼程序而与美国产生“联系”沟通，特权主张也失败了，因为根据美国法律，内部律师没有获得有效主张特权所需的执业律师资格。

专利代理人和专利律师的问题鉴于专利的获取和执行具有高度的国际性，专利侵权诉讼中经常会出现跨境特权问题。在这里，用语和许可证的问题会增加确定特权应用的常见挑战。在美国，“专利律师”是完全合格和有执照的律师，被允许出庭并为其客户提供全方位的法律服务。除了获得一个或多个州的律师执照外，他们还分别获得全国政府的执照在美国专利商标局代表客户处理专利事务，例如提交 Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

和起诉专利申请。较不常见的是“专利代理人”，他们没有受过法律训练，没有律师执照，只持有在美国专利商标局代表客户处理专利事务的执照。与专利代理人不同的是，专利代理人无权就他人持有的专利的侵权或有效性问题或与许可协议有关的问题向客户提供建议，因为此类事项被视为法律实践。由于他们的执业范围有限，很难单独代表客户，因此大多数专利代理人受雇于律师事务所或公司，并或多或少地与专利律师合作。相反地，在美国之外大多数有“专利律师”头衔的人都不是律师。例如，德语 patentanwalt 在英语中被称为“ 专利代理人”，但其执业范围比美国专利代理人的执业范围更广，但不如德语 rechtsanwalt（律师）或美国律师的执业范围广。由于“联系”方法下的特权主张的可行性可能取决于沟通发生地的司法管辖区是否会根据该司法管辖区的法律被承认为特权，因此有必要确定具有“专利律师”头衔的非美国人持有的许可证的性质，“因为他们享有特权的权利可能与律师不一样。

降低风险提高在美国诉讼中成功维护律师-客户特权的可能性的大多数策略都是以经济成本为代价的。为了节省成本，我们应该首先考虑在美国诉讼中赢得特权争议的潜在重要性。例如，即使是对特权问题敏感的美国公司，也可能使用非律师人员执行具法律性质但不是特别敏感的任务，例如跟进和报告合同条款。很多时候，我们完全有理由得出这样的结论：如果一名训练有素的非律师雇员能够充分处理这项任务，那么聘请律师处理某些问题，仅仅是为了在发生不可预见的纠纷时增强特权要求的额外成本并不适切。然而，对于敏感的、可能有争议的、具有高经济价值或风险的事项，或涉及对不遵守行为进行严厉处罚的法律或法规的事项，采取措施提高后续特权要求的可行性的额外成本可能是值得花费的。我们应该从一个假设开始，即美国法院将对非美国通信应用“联系”测试。因此，由于可能发现与非美国司法管辖区或与美国之间的沟通“有联系”，因此谨慎的做法是同时满足当地标准和美国标准。除了提醒某些司法管辖区不承认与内部法律顾问沟通的特权之外，建议如何遵守非美国律师-客户特权标准超出了本文的范围。如果在读者的管辖范围内发生这种情况，可能有必要聘请外部律师来加强内部律师的作用。为了满足美国的特权标准，如果法院发现沟通与美国有联系，我们从本系列的第一篇文章开始重复美国法律下管辖律师-客户特权保护的一般规则。具体而言，特权适用于 1）律师与客户间的沟通、2）秘密的沟通、3）为了要求或接受法律咨询的沟通。与在其执业的司法管辖区获得律师执照的外部律师的沟通不符合美国的允许加以特权保护的标准将是罕见的情况。因此，在被认为享有特权具有价值的情况下，确保法律沟通获得特权保护的最可靠方法是聘请外部律师。我们下一篇文章将探讨共同利益及共同辩护原则，在该等原则之下，在某些情况下客户将受律师客户特权保护的沟通揭露给第三方时将不构成对该保护特权的放弃。将可在该文章中看到的是，依赖该等原则之前必须谨慎应对，因为该等原则的范围并非如通常所认为的那么宽泛。

Cross Border Prenuptial Agreements Navigating the Dangerous Shoals of Love, Wealth and Marriage Involving Multiple Countries of Origin, Domicile and Residence By Mark E. Haranzo and Brooke M. Elliott A prenuptial agreement is entered into by a couple before marriage to address the rights and obligations that accrue in the event of a termination of the marriage by divorce or death. In the United States, there is not a uniform approach that controls prenuptial agreements because matrimonial law varies by state. Therefore, couples may face challenges enforcing a prenuptial agreement in different states due to conflicts of laws from each state. These challenges become more complex when navigating cross-border prenuptial agreements due to the application of foreign laws and multijurisdictional issues. As the world becomes more interconnected, international issues associated with prenuptial agreements are of significant importance because clients' wealth and relationships will increasingly span across many different countries and jurisdictions. There are many reasons why a couple may need to consider an international prenuptial agreement, such as owning assets in different countries, having multiple residences and/or nationalities, or the location of their business activities. It has become commonplace for couples from different countries to marry, to own assets in foreign jurisdictions and to live outside of their countries of origin. Since matrimonial laws are governed locally, each country has its own procedures and legal concepts to address a couple's property, marital and inheritance rights. Therefore, the criteria for enforcement varies among jurisdictions. In addition, while some countries have well-developed laws governing prenuptial agreements, others are much less developed, and it is common for the courts' position in various jurisdictions to diverge on the treatment and enforceability of prenuptial agreements. Civil law jurisdictions tend to have more established marital law regimes, whereas the laws governing prenuptial agreements in common law jurisdictions tend to be more unsettled. For example, the law governing prenuptial agreements in the United Kingdom, which is a common law jurisdiction, remains unsettled and largely relies on the 2010 landmark decision of the U.K. Supreme Court in the case of Radmacher v. Granatino, which held that while a prenuptial agreement is not automatically binding, the courts will consider the agreement if it is "freely entered into" and both parties have "a full appreciation of its implications." On the other hand, civil law jurisdictions, such as Brazil, tend to have more established marital law regimes. China's legal system is modeled after civil law jurisdictions. Similar to other civil law jurisdictions, prenuptial agreements are widely recognized in China so long as a court determines that the agreement was mutually entered into between a couple. Under the newly effective Chinese Civil Code, the term "joint property" generally refers to the property acquired and owned by husband and wife during a marriage, whereas, property acquired prior to marriage is generally considered "personal property." In the absence of a prenuptial agreement or in a situation where a prenuptial agreement is deemed to be vague, the distinction between joint and personal property should be governed by the relevant provisions of the Chinese Civil Code. However, the Chinese Civil Code allows for a couple to enter into a prenuptial agreement and elect to treat marital property as owned separately, jointly or as a combination of both. Although Hong Kong is part of China, the arrangement between China and Hong Kong has been described as "one country, two systems" because the two have historically had a separate legal and judicial system. Hong Kong was a British colony for more than 150 years and has adopted a legal system with principles similar to English common law. Therefore, the laws governing the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement are unsettled in Hong Kong and very few cases involving prenuptial agreements have been adjudicated by a Hong Kong Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

court. While Hong Kong is technically not bound by English common law, the courts largely rely on the Radmacher v. Granatino decision, and therefore, a court in Hong Kong will consider whether a prenuptial agreement is enforceable. Notwithstanding, the court has ultimate discretion to determine whether the agreement is fair and should be upheld. In the recent landmark Hong Kong case of LCYP v. JEK [2019] HKCFI 1588, the law was clarified by providing guidance about the standard at which the financially weaker party's needs must be assessed in the context of an "unvitiated" prenuptial agreement. In general, an "unvitiated" prenuptial agreement describes a clear agreement, entered into freely by both parties without evidence of factors such as duress or undue influence being present. Essentially, in the context of an "unvitiated" prenuptial agreement, the court held the agreement must be "fair."

CHOICE OF JURISDICTION IS KEY One of the key determinations when drafting a prenuptial agreement is the choice of jurisdiction that will govern the agreement. A prenuptial agreement should be drafted to comply with the laws of the couple's primary jurisdiction, which is a subjective determination based upon where the couple has the most connections. Factors that may have a significant bearing on the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement include the couple's current or future residence, domicile, their business connections and the location of their assets. If a couple plans to live in the U.S., a prenuptial agreement is commonly drafted under the law of the state where the couple will establish residency. On the other hand, if the couple plans to live abroad, it may make sense for foreign counsel to draft the prenuptial agreement, and for U.S. counsel to review the agreement to ensure any relevant U.S. state law provisions are incorporated. At the outset of negotiating a prenuptial agreement with international components, it is always important for both parties to engage separate foreign counsel to ensure that the agreement is drafted to comport with the laws of all relevant jurisdictions. This helps to assure that any differences in the application of foreign laws – such as the treatment of separate, marital and community property or the treatment of trusts and inherited assets – is properly addressed. In order to protect the rights of both parties and to increase the likelihood for the prenuptial agreement to be enforceable in the future, separate foreign counsel should be consulted in any jurisdiction where a party resides, conducts business, holds citizenship or in which a party or party's family owns significant assets. Consideration should also be given to having the agreement drafted in different languages to ensure that it is in each party's native tongue. The ultimate goal is to execute an agreement that is enforceable in any jurisdiction where the couple may reside or own property at the time of death or divorce.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS In the U.S., courts have discretion to recognize foreign prenuptial agreements and will generally do so unless the agreement is found to be unconscionable or one that otherwise frustrates public policy. From a crossborder perspective, some courts will be more likely to enforce a prenuptial agreement if it is drafted in the native language of both parties. Therefore, a prenuptial agreement drafted in the U.S. for a couple with connections to China should be translated in Mandarin by local counsel. On the other hand, if the couple plans to live in China, the prenuptial agreement will generally be drafted by Chinese counsel, but should be reviewed and translated by counsel in the home country of the other spouse. With that being said, a "globally enforceable" prenuptial agreement does not exist and, therefore, in the event of future litigation, there is no guarantee a court will find the agreement to be enforceable. Consequently, a belt-and-suspenders approach tends to achieve the most asset protection for clients. From a U.S. planning perspective, other asset protection techniques that are commonly considered in addition to a prenuptial agreement include premarital asset protection trusts or foreign grantor trust planning.

Please note: A recording of Mark Haranzo's webinar presentation of the same title, which kicked off Holland & Knight's International Private Client Webinar Series, is available on Holland & Knight's website. Another presentation, "Divorce in a Post-Tax Reform World with a Focus on Cross-Border Issues," is also available on Holland & Knight's website.

跨境婚前协议应对涉及多个国家、住所和居所的爱情、财富和婚姻风险的方法原文作者：Mark E. Haranzo 及 Brooke M. Elliott 婚前协议是一对夫妇在婚前订立以处理因离婚或死亡而终止婚姻时所产生的权利和义务问题的协议。在美国婚姻法因州而异，所以没有一个统一的方法来管控婚前协议。由于各州的法律差异，夫妻在不同的州执行婚前协议时可能会面临挑战。而当外国法律也适用并发生多个司法管辖区的问题时，处理跨境婚前协议所遇到的挑战将变得更加复杂。随着世界变的更加相互连结，与婚前协议相关的国际问题具有重要意义，因为客户的财富和关系将越来越多地跨越许多不同的国家和司法管辖区。夫妻需要考虑签订国际婚前协议的原因有很多，譬如在不同国家拥有资产、拥有多个住所及/或国籍、或者是他们的商业活动所在地点的因素。来自不同国家的夫妇结婚、在外国司法管辖区拥有资产、并在原籍国以外居住已经成为司空见惯的情形了。由于婚姻法是由当地的法律管辖，每个国家都有自己的程序和法律概念来处理夫妻的财产权、婚姻权和继承权。因此，各法域的执行标准各不相同。此外，虽然有些国家关于婚前协议的法律很发达，但另一些国家的法律则不太发达，而且各法域的法院在婚前协议的处理和执行问题上的立场有分歧也很常见。大陆法系的司法管辖区往往有更为完备的婚姻法制度，而普通法系的司法管辖区规范婚前协议的法律往往更不完全明确。例如，英国这个普通法系的司法管辖区有关婚前协议的法律仍尚未完全明确，并很大程度上依赖英国最高法院 2010 年在 Radmacher v. Granatino 一案中所作出的具有里程碑意义的判决来决定，该判决判定婚前协议不都是自动有效的，而法院会考虑协议是否是“自由订立”的、且双方都“充分了解其含义”。另一方面，巴西等大陆法系国家往往有更为完备的婚姻法制度。中国的法律制度是参照大陆法系国家模式建立的。与其他大陆法系司法管管辖区类似，只要法院认定婚前协议是夫妻双方共同订立的，婚前协议在中国也得到广泛承认。根据新生效的《中华人民共和国民法典》，共同财产一般是指夫妻在婚姻关系中取得和拥有的财产，而婚前取得的财产一般被视为“个人财产”。在没有婚前协议或婚前协议被认为不明确的情况下，共同财产和个人财产的区分应适用中国民法典的有关规定。然而，中国《民法典》允许一对夫妇签订婚前协议，并选择将婚姻财产归各自所有、共同所有或者部分各自所有。香港是中国的一部分，但因两地在历史上有不同的法律和司法制度，中国内地和香港之间的安排被称为“一国两制”，香港是英国 150 多年的殖民地并采用了与英国普通法相似的法律制度。因此，在香港关于婚前协议的可执行性法律尚未完全明确，而且很少有涉及婚前协议的案件在香港法院中被做成判决。虽然香港在技术上不受英国普通法的约束，但法院在很大程度上依赖于 Radmacher v. Granatino 一案的判决的来决定婚前协议的可执行性问题。无论如何，香港法院将有最终的自由裁量权来决定婚前协议是否公平、及是否其效力应予以维持。在最近香港在 LCYP v. JEK [2019] HKCFI 1588 一案所作出具有里程碑意义的判决案例中，法律对经济弱势的一方在“ 有效的”婚前协议的需求必须被加以考量的标准做出了指导性的澄清。一般来说，“有效的”婚前协议是指双方在没有证据表明存有胁迫或不当影响等因素的情况下自由订立的明确协议。基本上，在“有效的”婚前协议的情况下，法院认为协议必须是“公平的”。

管辖权的选择是关键拟订婚前协议时的关键决定之一是选择管辖协议的司法管辖区。婚前协议的拟订应符合适用夫妻的主要管辖区的法律，这是基于夫妻关系最密切的地方的主观决定。可能对婚前协议的可执行性产生重大影响的因素包括夫妻目前或未来的居住地、住所、业务关系和资产所在地。如果一对夫妇计划在美国居住，通常会根据他们将建立居所的州的法律起草其婚前协议。另一方面，如果这对夫妇计划在国外生活，那么合适的作法将是由外国律师起草婚前协议并由美国律师审查协议，以确保纳入任何相关的美国州法律规定。在开始协商有国际因素的婚前协议时，双方都应聘请各自的外国律师以确保协议的拟订符合所有相关司法管辖区的法律。这有助于确保对适用外国法律的任何差异的处理——例如对个人、婚姻和共同财产的处理，或对信托和继承资产的处理——得到适当的解决。为了保护双方的权利并增加婚前协议未来被执行的可能性，应向在一方居住、经营业务、拥有公民身份或一方或一方的家庭拥有重大资产的任何司法管辖区的个别外国律师进行咨询。还应考虑以不同的语文拟订协议，以确保协议以各方的母语起草。最终目标是签署一份可在夫妻死亡或离婚时的居住或拥有财产的任何司法管辖区执行的协议。

其他注意事项在美国，法院有自由裁量权承认外国婚前协议，且除非该协议被认定为不合情理或以其他方式违反公共政策，法院通常会承认外国婚前协议。从跨境的角度来看，如果婚前协议是用双方的母语拟订的，一些法院更有可能对其进行执行。因此，在美国为一对与中国有关系的夫妇拟订的婚前协议应该由当地律师翻译成中文。另一方面，如果夫妻双方计划在中国居住，则婚前协议通常应由中国律师草拟，但应由另一方的母国律师审查和翻译。尽管如此，一个“全球可执行”的婚前协议并不存在，因此，在未来的诉讼中，不能保证法院会认定该协议是可执行的。因此，保守的方法往往能为客户实现最大的资产保护。从美国的规划角度来看，除婚前协议外，通常考虑的其他资产保护方法包括婚前资产保护信托或外国设保人信托规划。

提请注意：开启 Holland & Knight 一系列关于国际私人客户的网络研讨会的一个与本文同名的 Mark Haranzo 的网络研讨会可在 Holland & Knight 的网站上参加。而他另一个名为“税改后时代的离婚—重点关注跨境问题”的网络研讨会也可以在 Holland& Knight 的网站上参加。

The ABCs of Expatriation in These Chaotic Times By Alan Winston Granwell, Andrea Darling de Cortes, Leon Fresco, Kevin E. Packman and William M. Sharp

HIGHLIGHTS  Expatriation has increased significantly in 2020. The latest U.S. Department of the Treasury Report reflects that a record 6,047 individuals expatriated during the first three quarters of 2020. In addition, 834,000 "green card" holders became U.S. citizens in FY 2019, which reflects an 11-year high.  Why are so many individuals expatriating? Perhaps it is because we live in chaotic times, ranging from the pandemic to the contentious presidential election and transition, among other reasons. Further, U.S. taxpayers increasingly are considering moving a portion of their financial portfolios offshore for diversification and to facilitate global trading.  The increase in expatriation also has caught the attention of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), which, in a recent report, emphasized that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should have controls in place to better enforce U.S. tax and reporting provisions relating to expatriates.  In view of the significant uptick in expatriation activity, this Holland & Knight article reviews in Q&A format the essential elements of expatriation from an immigration and tax perspective. ________________ As discussed in Holland & Knight's previous alert, "TIGTA Tasks IRS with Enhanced Enforcement of Noncompliant Expatriates" (Nov. 23, 2020), expatriation has increased significantly in 2020. The latest U.S. Department of the Treasury Report reflects that a record 6,047 individuals expatriated during the first three quarters of 2020. This compares to the previous annual record in 2016, when 5,411 individuals expatriated. Interestingly, going the other way, 834,000 "green card" holders became U.S. citizens in FY 2019, which reflects an 11-year high in new oaths of citizenship. The increase in expatriation caught the attention of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), which, in a report issued on Sept. 28, 2020, emphasized that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should have controls in place to better enforce U.S. tax and reporting provisions relating to expatriates. Why are so many individuals expatriating? Perhaps it is because we live in chaotic times: the pandemic; the economy, social, health and climate issues; the oppressive worldwide U.S. taxation and reporting systems and the impact of the U.S. tax rules on so-called "Accidental Americans"; Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and, most recently, the contentious presidential election and transition.1 Further, U.S. taxpayers increasingly are considering moving a portion of their financial portfolios offshore for diversification and to facilitate global trading. As a result of the increase in expatriations and TIGTA's report admonishing IRS to have better controls and enforcement of expatriations, in this article we review in Q&A format the essential elements of expatriation from an immigration and tax perspective.

I. U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW ASPECTS OF TERMINATING U.S. CITIZENSHIP Q1. How Do I Terminate U.S. Citizenship? Answer.  U.S. citizenship can be terminated through several methods, which include renunciation and relinquishment. This article considers only the renunciation of U.S. nationality abroad, which is the most unequivocal way by which an individual can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.  The renunciation method requires a voluntary choice and an understanding of the consequences.  Under this method, a U.S. citizen must appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer in a foreign country and sign an oath of renunciation of U.S. citizenship.  Renunciation must be in person and cannot be done by mail, electronically or through agents.  A Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) documents the loss of U.S. nationality. A CLN is completed by a consular official and sent to the U.S. Department of State for review and approval. U.S. citizenship is terminated only upon approval of a CLN, which is retroactive to the date of the oath of renunciation.  Comment. In view of the pandemic, it may not be possible to quickly or easily schedule an appointment at an embassy or consulate because of long delays in scheduling appointments, the closure of some embassies or consulates or because some embassies or consulates are not handling interviews during the pandemic. As mentioned above, renunciation must be in person. Q2. What Are the Consequences of Terminating U.S. citizenship? Answer.  Unless the former citizen possesses a valid foreign nationality or citizenship, he or she may be rendered stateless, and thus lack the protection of any government. The lack of a second foreign nationality or citizenship will also likely lead to difficulty in traveling as the individual does not have a passport from any country, and otherwise result in severe hardships.  Thus, prior to renunciation, ensure that the U.S. citizen lawfully obtained and still retains another nationality or citizenship. This can be done 1) by reason of birth outside the U.S., 2) through parents or grandparents (at birth or later), 3) through naturalization, or 4) through investment.  "Golden Visa" refers to immigration programs of countries that enable high-net-worth (HNW) individuals to obtain residence or citizenship in another country simply by purchasing a house in the country or making a significant investment or donation. If the immigrant pursues a Golden Visa, he or she must be careful to obtain what he or she expected.  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), after analyzing more than 100 citizenship or residence by investment schemes, cautioned that a number of these schemes pose a high risk to the integrity of the Common Reporting Standard and of tax abuse.  Other Consequences.  Termination of citizenship is irrevocable once approved, unless duress or lack of understanding can be proven.  Former U.S. citizens have no right to visit, work or reside in U.S. and have no advantage over other noncitizens in applying to do so.

 Former U.S. citizens are required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Program. If unable to qualify for a visa, a former citizen could be permanently barred from entering the U.S.  If the U.S. Department of Homeland Security determines that the renunciation is motivated by tax avoidance purposes, the former citizen could be found to barred from entry into the United States through the application of the so-called Reed Amendment, adopted in 1996.  It should be noted that poor drafting and restrictions on IRS sharing of taxpayer information have blocked implementation, since no regulations, policy guidance or procedures have been issued to implement the law.  Nonetheless, a number of former citizens at the border have been denied entry initially but overcame that denial; others have been interrogated about their reasons for expatriating.  Note, in June 2013, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced amendments to the immigration reform bill to deny entry to "Covered Expatriates" who expatriated since 2008; these amendments were never enacted.  Impact on children  A child who became a U.S. citizen before the expatriation of a parent remains a U.S. citizen unless the child was born abroad and parent's expatriation was retroactive to a date prior to the child's birth.  A child born abroad to a former U.S. citizen does not obtain U.S. citizenship from the expatriated parent.  Names of expatriates are published in Federal Register.  Expatriates cannot purchase or possess firearms in the U.S.  Comments.  Prior to expatriation, it is important for the expatriating U.S. citizen to consider options for return to the U.S. in the future, such as for medical care, for career opportunities, to care for aging parents, to reside near adult children in old age or for other reasons.  Ensure expatriating U.S. citizen is not "excludable" from the U.S.; e.g., criminal convictions, prior immigration violations, terrorism and medical exclusion grounds (which may include arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, even if not convicted).

II. U.S. TAX LAW ASPECTS OF TERMINATING U.S. CITIZENSHIP Q1. Background: Who Is Impacted by the U.S. Expatriation Law? Answer.  Expatriation tax provisions have been in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (Code) since 1966.  Until 1996, expatriation tax provisions applied only to U.S. citizens relinquishing U.S. citizenship.  Beginning in 1996, the U.S. anti-expatriation provisions were extended to apply not only to U.S. citizens but also to certain "green card" holders classified as "long-term residents," provided such persons are Covered Expatriates." See Section III, infra, contains a discussion of the special expatriation rules applicable to "green card" holders and planning considerations.

 Please note that this article discusses only the Code's income and estate and gift tax expatriation provisions applicable to individuals who are Covered Expatriates and expatriate on or after June 17, 2008, and not to earlier expatriation provisions. Q2. What Does the Term "Expatriate" Mean? Answer.  A U.S. citizen who relinquishes citizenship. Also encompassed within that term, but not discussed herein, is the renunciation of citizenship and the loss of U.S. citizenship when a U.S. court cancels a naturalized citizen's certification of naturalization.  A "long-term" resident of the U.S., who ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.; see Section III, Q2 below. Q3. What Are the Principal Code Sections and Precedent Dealing with Expatriation? Answer.  Section 877A. The so-called "exit" tax, dealing with the income tax consequences to "Covered Expatriates," definitions and operating rules.  Section 2801. Containing the gift and estate tax consequences applicable to a "Covered Expatriate." Proposed Regulations were issued in 2015, more than seven years after Section 2801 became law.  Section 6039G. Containing the IRS Form 8854 compliance provisions.  Notice 2009-85. Providing guidance for expatriates under Section 877A. Q4. Who Is a Covered Expatriate? Answer.  A "covered expatriate," defined in Q2 of this Section, is someone who meets any of the following three tests:  The Tax Liability Test. An expatriate who has an average annual net income tax liability for the five preceding taxable years ending before the expatriation date that exceeds a specified amount adjusted for inflation. For 2020, the amount is $171,000.  The Net Worth Test. An expatriate who has a net worth of $2 million or more, but not adjusted for inflation as of the expatriation date.  The Certification Test. An expatriate who fails to certify, under penalties of perjury, compliance with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the five taxable years preceding the taxable year that includes the expatriation date, including, but not limited to, obligations to file income tax, employment tax, gift tax and information returns, if applicable, and obligations to pay all relevant tax liabilities, interest and penalties. This certification is made on IRS Form 8854 and must be filed by the due date of the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the taxable year that includes the day before the expatriation.  Comments.  An individual who otherwise does not meet the Tax Liability Test or the Net Worth Test nonetheless is a "Covered Expatriate" if the individual cannot satisfy the Certification Test.  Note, the certification of U.S. federal income tax obligations under the Certification Test are those under U.S.C. Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code). Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Compliance with Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, so-called "FBAR" obligations arise under U.S.C. Title 31 (Money and Finance) and thus are not part of the above U.S.C. Title 26 Certification Test.  If a U.S. citizen or resident alien is not compliant with his or her other U.S. federal income tax obligations or FBAR filing obligations, there are various IRS programs to remediate that noncompliance.  Exceptions:  The expatriate became at birth a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another country and, as of the expatriation date, continues to be a citizen of, and is taxed as a resident of, such other country, and has been a U.S. resident for not more than 10 taxable years during the 15 taxable year period ending with the taxable year during which the expatriation date occurs;  To come within this foreign residency exception, the individual must be a resident of the country in which the individual was born in (and not of another foreign country). 

or The expatriate relinquishes U.S. citizenship before age 18½ and has been a U.S. resident for not more than 10 taxable years before the date of relinquishment.  Comment. There are no exceptions to Covered Expatriate status for long-term residents. 

Q5. What Is the Expatriation Date? Answer.  It is the date an individual relinquishes U.S. citizenship or, in the case of a long-term resident of the United States, the date on which the individual ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.  For a U.S. citizen who renounces U.S. citizenship, the expatriation date is the date that the individual signs the oath of renunciation before a diplomatic or consular officer of the U.S., provided that the renunciation is subsequently approved by the issuance of a CLN.  For a long-term resident, the expatriation date is the date of cessation of lawful permanent residency. That can occur:  through an administrative revocation,  a judicial determination of abandonment, or  commencement as a resident of a foreign country under the provisions of a U.S. bilateral income tax treaty, provided that the individual waives treaty benefits, and notifies the IRS of such treatment on IRS Forms 8833 and 8854. Q6. Income Tax Expatriation Provision: What Is the So-Called "Mark-to-Market"/Exit Tax?2 Answer.  General Rule. Section 877A generally imposes a "mark-to-market" income taxation regime on Covered Expatriates, which results in the deemed sale of worldwide assets (except for three categories of assets) on the day before the expatriation date. The gain is taxed at applicable ordinary or capital gains rates on gains in excess of $600,000 (indexed for inflation; $737,000 for 2020).  Operating Rules:

    



Any gain arising on the deemed sale is taken into account for the taxable year of the deemed sale notwithstanding any other Code provision. Any loss from the deemed sale is taken into account for the taxable year to the extent otherwise provided in the Code (except for the Code wash-sale rules, Section 1091). All nonrecognition deferral and tax payment extensions are terminated as of the day before expatriation. The determination of ownership and valuation of assets is based on estate tax principles. An expatriate can elect to defer tax on an asset-by-asset basis if "adequate security" is provided (with a 30-day cure period). Deferral continues until asset sold/transferred or taxpayer dies, if sooner. The taxpayer must agree to waive tax treaty benefits; and interest accrues on deferred tax at the Code underpayment rate. Long-term residents have a basis step-up (but not basis step-down) for purposes of calculating gain under the mark-to-market taxing regime. Note, the resident individual may elect not to have this step-up in basis apply.

Q7. What Assets Are Excluded from the Deemed Sale Rule and How Are They Taxed? Answer.  Deferred Compensation Items. "Deferred Compensation" is broadly defined to include all types of employer retirement plans, including qualified, nonqualified retirement plans, as well as foreign plans and the right to future property transfers that an individual is entitled to receive in connection with the performance of services to the extent that amounts were not previously includible in taxable income. Not included: deferred compensation attributable to non-U.S. services performed while taxpayer was not a U.S. resident. Retirement plan payments are excepted from early distribution penalties.  Taxation.  "Eligible Deferred Compensation" (i.e., U.S. payor): subject to 30 percent withholding tax on taxable portion under Section 871 rules.  "Ineligible Deferred Compensation" (i.e., non-U.S. payor): present value and includible income on day prior to expatriation date at marginal tax rates (unless non-U.S. payor elects to be treated as a U.S. payor).  Specified Tax Deferred Accounts. These include the following types of accounts:  Individual retirement plan (including rollover IRAs).  Qualified tuition program.  Coverdell education savings account.  Health savings account.  Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).  Taxation. On day prior to expatriation date.  Non-Grantor Trusts. Any trust of which taxpayer is not the grantor immediately prior to expatriation date. Includes trusts that are grantor trusts as to other person, Code Section 678.  Taxation.  Post-expatriation distribution from non-grantor trust in which taxpayer considered to have beneficial interest prior to expatriation subject to 30 percent withholding tax on the "taxable portion" under Section 871 rules; there is no time limit on the taxation of distributions.  Special Rules.  Non-grantor trust recognizes gain on distribution of appreciated property. Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved



 

Taxpayer deemed to waive any treaty benefits, unless obtains special IRS ruling to have ascertainable value of beneficial interest includible in income on day prior to expatriation date. If non-grantor trust becomes grantor trust after expatriation, deemed treatment as taxable distribution. Potential foreign tax credit issues under Section 906.

Q8. What Are the Section 877A Compliance Requirements?3 Answer.  IRS Form 8854 (Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement). The form must be timely filed with final income tax return. If it is not, the former citizen is treated as a Covered Expatriate. Form must be filed also for eligible deferred compensation items, beneficial interests in non-grantor trusts and for taxpayers who deferred payment of tax. On Sept. 6, 2019, the IRS announced a new procedure entitled "Relief Procedure for Certain Former Citizens," to enable certain non-compliant U.S. citizens who relinquish their U.S. citizenship to become U.S. tax compliant. The procedure has a narrow scope applicable to non-willful former citizens who owe $25,000 or less in back taxes and with net assets of less than $2 million.4  IRS Form W-8CE (Notice of Expatriation and Waiver of Treaty Benefits) required to be filed in connection with items excepted from mark-to-market rule, by earlier of first post expatriation distribution or 30 days after expatriation date.  Income Tax Returns.  Year of Expatriation. A Covered Expatriate required to file a dual-status return if he/she was a U.S. citizen or long-term resident for only part of the taxable year that includes the day before the expatriation date.  A dual-status return requires the Covered Expatriate to file an IRS Form 1040NR (U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return) with an IRS Form 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) attached as a schedule.  If the Covered Expatriate's expatriation date is Jan. 1, then filer is not required to file a dualstatus return.  Subsequent Years. If Covered Expatriate does not have any U.S. source income or it is fully withheld at source, there is no requirement to file IRS Form 1040NR for that particular year. Q9. Estate and Gift Tax Expatriation Provisions: How Do They Apply?5 Answer.  General Rule. Under Section 2801, U.S. citizens or residents receiving "covered gifts or covered bequests" from a Covered Expatriate will be taxed at the highest applicable gift or estate rate (40 percent in 2020).  "Covered gift or covered bequest." Property that is acquired directly or indirectly by gift from, or by reason of the death of, a person who, at the time of the acquisition or death, was a Covered Expatriate.  A gift or bequest includes a distribution from the income or corpus of a foreign trust to a U.S. person attributable to a "covered gift or covered bequest" made to a foreign trust.  A "covered gift or covered bequest" to a domestic trust (a U.S. citizen) is a gift to a U.S. person and taxable to the trust. Note, an election exists for a foreign trust to elect to be taxed as a domestic trust. Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

 An issue arises as how the term "U.S. resident" is defined – whether that term is defined under the domicile concept of Subtitle B (Estate and Gift Taxes) or the income tax rules ("substantial presence" and "green card" tests).  No time limit on the imposition of gift or estate taxes to U.S. recipients under Section 2801.  Exceptions.  Amount of annual gift tax exclusion ($15,000), per person.  Gifts or bequests entitled to marital or charitable deductions.  A "covered gift "if reported on a timely filed gift tax return.  Property included in a Covered Expatriate's gross estate and reported on a timely filed federal estate tax return.  The U.S. tax on a "covered gift or covered bequest" is reduced by any foreign gift or estate tax paid on such gift or bequest.  Effective Date.  Notice 2009-85 provided that the reporting and tax obligations for "covered gifts or covered bequests" received would be deferred, pending the issuance of guidance.  Proposed Regulations under Section 2801 were issued by IRS on Sept. 9, 2015 and provided that they would apply on or after the date of final publication.  Comment.  U.S. recipients have the responsibility to determine whether a gift or bequest received is a "covered gift or covered bequest" and have the responsibility of paying the tax under Section 2801.  A U.S. taxpayer may request that the IRS disclose the return of a donor or decedent expatriate to assist the U.S. person in determining that person's tax obligations. If a living expatriate donor does not authorize the IRS to release his or her relevant return to a U.S. citizen or resident, a rebuttable presumption arises to the effect that the expatriate donor is a Covered Expatriate and that each gift is a "covered gift."  The Section 2801 tax is not reduced by the gift tax unified credit or the estate tax unified credit.  There is no correlation between the amount of property subject to the "exit" tax or whether the "covered gift or covered bequest" is composed of U.S. or foreign situs property.  Does Section 2801 override bilateral estate or gift tax treaties? The Proposed Regulations do not expressly state that treaties are not overridden, and the legislative history is silent on this point.

III. APPLICATION OF U.S. TAX EXPATRIATION PROVISIONS TO "GREEN CARD" HOLDERS Q1. Who Is a "Green Card" Holder? Answer.  The following individuals are deemed to be "green card" holders:  An alien who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. A permanent resident card ("green card") is issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service after admission and is later mailed to the alien's U.S. address.  After entering the U.S. on an immigrant visa, the alien is granted Permanent or Conditional Resident status.  An individual in possession of a Permanent Resident Card (I-551), which is proof of lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The card also serves as a valid identification document and proof that the alien is eligible to live and work in the United States. Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

 Comment. Green card holders need to be aware that taking a treaty tie-breaker position to file as a nonresident alien for U.S. income tax purposes could adversely impact their immigration status and cause an unintended expatriation. Q2. Who Is a Long-Term Resident? Answer.  Any individual (other than a U.S. citizen) who has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States (a "green card" holder) in at least eight out of the last 15 taxable years ending with the year in which the "longterm resident expatriated" (i.e.,ceases to be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States). Unlike U.S. citizens, U.S. "green card" holders can expatriate involuntarily, by having their "green card" revoked for abandonment, criminal conviction or other deportable offenses.  Revocation for Abandonment. A "green card" holder who takes up residence abroad risks having the green card revoked for abandonment. This can occur if the "green card" holder is absent from the U.S. continuously for more than one year or absent extensively (more than 50 percent) with only short visits to U.S. Visiting the U.S. once or twice per year, owning a personal residence or bank/retirement account in U.S. does not protect against abandonment.  A re-entry permit preserves "green card" status while residing abroad.  A "treaty tie-breaker" is deemed to have expatriated as of the date of "commencement" of foreign residence under a treaty unless the individual waives treaty benefits and notifies the IRS on IRS Forms 8833 and 8854.  Relinquishment. A "green card" holder can voluntarily relinquish his or her "green card" by filing Form I-407 (Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status) and avoid coming within the eight out of 15-year test by surrendering his/her "green card" before the first day of Year Eight. Computation Mechanics:  Determine the 15-year period that ends when the "green card" is relinquished.  Note, if an individual is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. at any time during the calendar year, then that individual is a lawful permanent resident for that year. For example, arrival in the U.S. on Dec. 31 counts as a full year as does departure from the U.S. on Jan. 1.  A "green card" holder that is a lawful permanent resident for eight out of 15 years is viewed as expatriating for tax purposes if the individual 1) voluntarily abandons his/her "green card"; 2) elects to be a resident of a foreign country under treaty tie-breaker provisions and does not waive treaty benefits; or 3) the government administratively or judicially terminates alien's "green card" status.  Tax planning considerations for "green card" holders:  Leave U.S. and surrender "green card" by filing Form I-407 before first day of eighth year.  If "green card" holder desires to return to foreign home for a period of time without jeopardizing "green card" status, obtain re-entry permit in advance of trip.  If "green card" holder" wants to continue to reside in U.S. but wants to avoid long-term resident classification, timely surrender "green card" and obtain nonimmigrant visa status.  Become a U.S. citizen. A U.S. citizen can reside abroad forever without losing citizenship.  Comment. An alien who is in the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa and is a U.S. resident under the "substantial presence" test cannot become a long-term resident subject to the U.S. expatriation rules. Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

IV. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Q1. What Should You Consider Before Expatriating? Answer.  Obtain timely and accurate immigration and tax advice.  Have a valid second nationality or citizenship.  Carefully identify ownership and value of all assets and liabilities.  Consider how property rights impact who owns which assets.  Pre or post-nuptial agreement?  Does a common law or community property regime apply?  Evaluate the cost of Section 877A and Section 2801 taxes compared to remaining a U.S. taxpayer.  Exit tax – a one-time cost.  Continuing as a U.S. citizen – incurs lifetime annual income taxes and potential estate tax at death.  How does expatriation impact multigenerational wealth planning? This is particularly important if the expatriate's heirs intend to remain U.S. citizens.  If potential expatriate is not in compliance with the Certification Test, consider how to remediate noncompliance prior to expatriation (and concurrently remediate for any non-compliance with FBARs). Q2. Some Planning Ideas Answer.  Gifting to Reduce Net Worth. Reduce net worth for purposes of the Net Worth Test, but must be carefully done.  Consider use of unified credit prior to expatriation since credit not available post-expatriation.  Consider use of non-grantor irrevocable trusts. Avoid "string" provisions; e.g., estate tax retained interest and general power of appointment provisions.  Consider gifts to spouse before expatriation; viz., use of the unlimited gift tax marital deduction provided your U.S. citizen spouse is not expatriating, or gifting to noncitizen spouse (2020 amount is up to $157,000).  Carefully consider timing of gifts close to expatriation.  IRS Form 8854 Instructions requires furnishing balance sheet information "(i)f there have been significant changes in your assets and liabilities for the period that began 5 years before your expatriation and ended on the date that you first filed Form 8854, you must attach a statement explaining the changes.")  For long-term residents planning to expatriate, consider possible planning opportunities related to different definition of resident for income tax purposes versus definition for gift tax purposes and potential for gifting.  Caveat: This planning idea requires careful evaluation in the overall context of the immigration and tax provisions related to expatriation.  Techniques to Minimize Gain or Income Under Exit Tax.

 Exit tax is based on the fair market value (FMV) of property. Consider traditional estate planning techniques and vehicles, such as family limited partnerships, where valuation discounts may be available. Here, be sensitive to timing. Planning should be done sufficiently in advance of expatriation.  Sale of Residence. Consider selling residence prior to expatriation if otherwise qualify for Section 121 exclusion of $250,000 ($500,000 for certain married taxpayers). Prior to implementing any planning ideas, it is important to consult with your immigration and tax advisors. Conclusion For more information and questions regarding expatriation from an immigration and tax perspective, contact the authors. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Steve Trow, co-founder and now retired partner of Trow & Rahal, P.C., who contributed to earlier iterations of some of the content in Section I of this article.

Notes 1

See "Demand for second passports and citizenship soars," International Investment, Dec. 1, 2020.

See "The Tax Rules Just Changed: Emotions Aside, Does Expatriating Make Financial Sense?," Kevin E. Packman, Journal of Taxation, August 2008.

See "The IRS Approach to Dealing with the Expat Community is Schizophrenic," Kevin E. Packman, Estate Planning Journal, January 2020.

See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "New IRS Procedure Provides Favorable Path for Non-Compliant Expatriates to Become Tax Compliant," Sept. 11, 2019. 4

See "IRS Provides Some Guidance on the New Expatriation Exit Tax," Kevin E. Packman and Summer A. LePree, Journal of Taxation, March 2010.

关于在此纷扰时期放弃美国国籍的基本知识原文作者：Alan Winston Granwell、 Andrea Darling de Cortes、 Leon Fresco、 Kevin E. Packman 及 William M. Sharp

重点摘要  2020 年放弃美国国籍人数显着增加。美国财政部最新报告显示，在 2020 年前三个季度中，有创纪录的 6,047 个人放弃美国国籍。此外，2019 财政年度有 834,000 名“绿卡”持有人者成为美国公民，这也是 11 年来新高。  为什么会有这么多人放弃美国国籍？也许是因为我们生活在一个纷扰的时期，从疫情到产生争议的总统选举和过渡时期等等。此外，美国纳税人越来越多地考虑将其部分金融投资组合转移到海外，以实现多元化并促进全球贸易。  放弃美国国籍人数的增加也引起了美国税务总局财政检查总署（TIGTA）的注意，该机构在最近的一份报告中强调，国税局（IRS）应该有适当的控制措施，以更好地执行与放弃美国国籍有关的美国税收和报告规定。  鉴于放弃美国国籍活动的显着增加，本 Holland & Knight 提示文章的问答环节从移民和税收的角度审视各有关放弃美国国籍的基本要素。 ________________ 如 Holland ＆ Knight 先前的提示文章“ TIGTA 责成 IRS 加强对不合规移民的执行措施” （2020 年 11 月 23 日）中所讨论的，2020 年放弃美国国籍的人数显着增加。美国财政部最新报告显示，2020 年的前三个季度有创纪录的 6,047 人放弃美国国籍。与 2016 年的上一个年度记录相比，当时有 5,411 人放弃美国国籍。有趣的是，相反地，2019 财政年度有 834,000 名“绿卡”持有人成为美国公民，这反映出 11 年来宣誓成为美国公民的情形的新高。放弃美国国籍人数的增加引起了美国税务总局财政检查总署（TIGTA）的注意，该机构在 2020 年 9 月 28 日发布的报告中强调，国税局（IRS）应该有适当的控制措施，以更好地执行美国法律中有关放弃美国国籍人士的税收和报告规定。为什么会有这么多人放弃美国国籍？也许是因为我们生活在一个纷扰的时期：疫情、经济、社会、健康和气候问题、令人难以承受的的美国全球性税收和申报制度、以及美国税收规则对所谓的 “例外视为美国人的规定” 的影响、《外国帐户税收合规法案》（FATCA）、以及最近产生争议的总统选举和过渡时期。1 此外，美国纳税人越来越多地考虑将部分金融投资组合转移到海外，以实现多元化并促进全球贸易。由于放弃美国国籍人士的增加以及 TIGTA 的报告责成国税局更好地控制和执行对放弃美国国籍人士的规定，在本文中，我们从问答环节着手从移民和税收角度审视各有关放弃美国国籍的基本要素。

关于终止美国公民身份的美国移民法方面规定

Q1.

我如何终止美国国籍？

 可以通过几种方法终止美国公民身份，包括宣告放弃和放弃。本文仅考虑在海外放弃美国国籍，这是个人表达放弃美国国籍的意图的最明确的方法。  放弃方法需要自愿选择并了解后果。  按照这种方法，美国公民必须亲自在外国的美国领事官员或外交官面前出现，并签署放弃美国公民的誓言。  放弃必须亲自进行，不能通过电子邮件、电子方式或通过代理完成。  国籍丧失证书（CLN）记录了美国国籍的丧失。CLN 由领事官员完成，并发送给美国国务院进行审查和批准。美国公民资格只有在获得 CLN 批准后方可终止，CLN 可以追溯到放弃宣誓之日。  评论。因为疫情关系，且由于安排面谈的时间太长、某些使馆或领事馆关闭、或由于某些使馆或领事馆在疫情期间不进行面谈，可能无法快速或容易地与使馆或领事馆安排面谈。如上所述，放弃必须亲自进行。 Q2.

终止美国国籍有什么后果？

回答.  除非该前公民具有有效的外国国籍或公民身份，否则他或她可能会变为无国籍人士因而缺乏任何政府的保护。缺少第二个外国国籍或公民身份也可能会导致旅行困难，因为个人没有任何国家的护照，且会造成严重的困境。  因此，在放弃之前，请确保美国公民合法获得并且仍然保留其他国籍或公民身份。这可以通过以下方式完成：1）由于在美国境外出生的原因； 2）通过父母或祖父母（在出生或出生后）、3）通过入籍、或 4）通过投资来完成。 

“黄金签证”是指一些国家的移民计划，这些计划使高净值人士（HNW）只需在该国购买房屋或进行大量投资或捐赠即可在另一个国家获得居住权或公民身份。如果移民申请黄金签证，则他必须谨慎以求达到他的期望。



经济合作与发展组织（OECD）在分析了 100 多个通过投资计划获得的公民身份或居住权之后，告诫地指出这些计划中的许多计划对共同报告标准的完整性和税收滥用构成了很高的风险。

 其他后果。  一旦获得批准，终止国籍是不可撤销的，除非可以证明存在胁迫或缺乏理解。  美国前公民无权到访美国或在美国工作或居住，并且在申请这样做时没有其他非公民的优势。  根据签证豁免计划的条款，前美国公民必须获得签证才能前往美国旅行，或表明他们符合入学条件。如果无法获得签证资格，则可能永久禁止前公民进入美国。  如果美国国土安全部确定放弃国籍是出于避税目的，则可以通过应用 1996 年通过的所谓《里德修正案》来禁止该前公民进入美国。 

应当指出的是，起草不力和对国税局共享纳税人信息的限制阻碍了相关规定的实施，因为没有颁布任何法规，政策指导或程序来实施法律。



但是一些前公民在边界上最初被拒绝入境但克服了这些拒绝。其他人因其移居国外的原因而受到审问。



请注意，2013 年 6 月，参议员查克·舒默（Chuck Schumer）（民主党-纽约州），杰克·里德（Jack Reed）（民主党-罗德岛）和鲍勃·凯西（Bob Casey）（民主党-宾州）提出了对移民改革法案的修正案，以拒绝自 2008 年以来移居国外的 “适用的放弃美国国籍人士”进入美国；这些修正案从未被制订成法律。

 对儿童的影响  除非孩子在国外出生并且父母的放弃国籍追溯到孩子出生之前，否则在父母放弃国籍之前成为美国公民的孩子仍然是美国公民。  由美国前公民在国外出生的孩子不会从外籍父母那里获得美国国籍。  放弃国籍人士的姓名在《联邦公报》中公布。  放弃国籍人士人士不能在美国购买或拥有枪支。  评论。  在放弃国籍之前，对于放弃美国国籍的美国公民来说，考虑将来返回美国的选择很重要，例如医疗、职业机会、照顾年迈的父母、高龄时与成年子女居住或其他原因。  确保放弃国籍美国的美国公民不被 “拒绝入境”美国；例如，刑事定罪、先前的移民违法行为、恐怖主义和医疗有关的拒绝入境理由（可能包括因酒精影响驾驶而被逮捕，即使未被定罪）。

II.

关于终止美国国籍的美国税法方面规定

Q1.

背景：谁受到美国关于放弃国籍的法律的影响？

回答.  自 1966 年以来，放弃美国国籍的税法规定一直存在于美国《国内税收法》中。  在 1996 年之前，放弃国籍的税法规定仅适用于放弃美国国籍的美国公民。  从 1996 年开始，美国的反放弃国籍规定不仅适用于美国公民，而且还适用于某些被归类为“长期居民”的 “绿卡”持有人，“但前提是这些人是适用的放弃美国国籍人士。” 参见下文第三节。其包括关于适用于 “绿卡”持有人的特殊放弃国籍规则和计划的注意事项。  请注意，本文仅讨论适用于适用的放弃美国国籍人士和 2008 年 6 月 17 日或之后的放弃国籍人士的《守则》中有关收入，遗产和赠与税的放弃国籍规定，不适用于先前的放弃国籍规定。 Q2.

“放弃国籍”一词是什么意思？

回答.  放弃公民身份的美国公民。当美国法院取消入籍公民的入籍证明时，放弃该公民身份和丧失美国公民资格也包括在该词语中，但此处未进行讨论。  美国的“长期”居民，不再是美国的合法永久居民；请参阅下面的第三部分，第二个问题。 Q3.

与放弃国籍有关的主要法律规定及法律先例为何？

回答.  第 877A 条。所谓的“离国”税，是指所得税对“适用的放弃美国国籍的人士”的定义和操作规则。  第 2801 条。其中包含适用于“适用的放弃美国国籍的人士”的赠与税和遗产税的后果。拟议法规于 2015 年发布，距 2801 条成为法律已超过 7 年。  第 6039G 条。包含 IRS 表格 8854 遵从规定。 Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

 009-85 通知。根据 877A 条为放弃美国国籍的人士提供指导。 Q4.

谁是适用的放弃美国国籍人士？

回答.  在本节的第二个问题中定义的“适用的放弃美国国籍人士”是指满足以下三个条件中的任何一个的人：  税收责任测试。一个放弃美国国籍人士，在放弃国籍之日前的前五个纳税年度的平均年净所得税责任超过了为通货膨胀调整的特定数额。2020 年的金额为 171,000 美元。  净值测试。净资产在 200 万美元或以上的放弃美国国籍人士，但不以在放弃国籍之日经过通货膨胀调整后的金额为准。  认证测试。一名放弃美国国籍的人士未能宣誓证明其在包括放弃国籍日期在内的纳税年度之前的五个纳税年度中遵守所有美国联邦税收义务，包括但不限于：所得税、就业税、赠与税和信息双边（如果适用），以及支付所有相关税收责任、利息和罚款的义务。该证明是根据 IRS 表格 8854 作成的，必须在纳税人的联邦所得税申报表到期日之前提交，该纳税年度包括放弃国籍前一天。  评论。 

如果一个人不满足税收责任测试或净值测试但符合认证测试要求，该个人仍属于“适用的放弃美国国籍人士”。



请注意，在“认证测试”下对美国联邦所得税义务的认证是指美国法典第 26 章（国内税收法）所规定的认证。



遵守国外银行和金融帐户申报，所谓的“ FBAR”义务是美国法典第 31 章（货币和金融）下产生的，因此不属于上述美国法典第 26 章中证测试的一部分。



如果美国公民或居住的外国人不履行其其他美国联邦所得税义务或 FBAR 申报义务，则可以采取各种 IRS 计划来补正这种不合规情况。

 例外情况： 

放弃美国国籍人士出生时是美国公民和其他国家/地区的公民，并且从放弃美国国籍之日起仍是该另一国家/地区并申报缴纳另一个国家/地区税的的居民，并且放弃美国国籍之日当年税务年度前的 15 个纳税年度中不超过 10 个纳税年度为美国公民；



要纳入此外国居留例外，该个人必须是该个人出生地国（而不是另一个外国）的居民。

或 

放弃美国国籍人士在 18½岁之前放弃了美国国籍，并且在放弃日期之前已经在美国居住了不超过 10 个纳税年度。

 评论。对于长期居民，适用的放弃美国国籍的人士身份没有例外。

Q5.

放弃美国国籍的日期为何？

回答.  这是个人放弃美国公民身份的日期，或者对于美国的长期居民而言，是该人不再是美国合法永久居民的日期。  对于放弃美国国籍的美国公民而言，弃美国国籍的日期是指该人在美国外交或领事官员面前签署放弃誓言的日期，但前提是该放弃声明随后需要获得 CLN 的批准。  对于长期居民，移居日期是终止合法永久居留的日期。可能发生于：

Q6.



通过行政撤销、



司法裁定放弃、或



根据美国双边所得税条约的规定，开始成为外国居民，前提是该人放弃条约利益，并在 IRS 表格 8833 和 8854 上将这种待遇通知 IRS。

关于放弃国籍的所得税规定：所谓的“按市价计价” /离国税？2

回答.  一般规则。第 877A 条通常对适用的放弃美国国籍人士施加“按市价计价”的所得税制度，这导致视为在放弃国籍日期的前一天出售全球资产（三类资产除外）。如果收益超过 600,000 美元（按通胀指数计算，2020 年为 737,000 美元），则按适用的普通收益或资本收益税率征税。  操作规则：

Q7.



尽管有其他国内税收法规定，在视同销售的应纳税年度中也应考虑视同销售产生的任何收益。



在本纳税年度中，在《国内税收法》另有规定的范围内，将被视为出售活动的任何损失都考虑在内（《国内税收法》洗钱规则第 1091 条除外）。



所有不承认的延期和纳税延期都在放弃国籍日期前一天终止。



财产所有权和资产评估的确定是基于遗产税原则。



如果提供了“足够的担保”（具有 30 天的改正期），则放弃美国国籍人士可以选择按资产逐项递延税款。递延一直持续到出售/转让资产或纳税人死亡（如果有的话）。纳税人必须同意放弃税收协定待遇；递延税项的利息应按国内税收法规定少付的利率计提。



长期居民为了计算按市值计价征税制度的收益，有基础上调（但没有基础下调）。请注意，居民个人可以选择不适用此基础调升。

视作销售规则排除哪些资产，以及如何征税？

回答.  递延补偿项目。“递延补偿”的定义广泛，包括所有类型的雇主退休计划，包括合格的及不合格的退休计划，以及外国计划以及个人有权因与执行以下服务而获得的财产转让权：以前不包含在应税收入中的金额。不包括：由于纳税人不是美国居民而进行的非美国服务而产生的递延补偿。退休计划付款不包括早期分配罚款。  税收。 

“合格的递延补偿”（即美国付款人）：根据第 871 条规定，对应税部分征收 30％的预扣税。



“不合格的递延补偿”（即，非美国付款人）：放弃国籍日之前一天的边际税率的现值和含税收入（除非非美国付款人选择被视为美国付款人）。

 指定的递延税款账户。其中包括以下类型的帐户： 

个人退休计划（包括累计 IRA）。



合格的学费计划。



Coverdell 教育储蓄帐户。



健康储蓄账户。



阿切尔医疗储蓄帐户（MSA）。

 课税。在放弃国籍日期的前一天。  非授予人信托。在放弃国籍之日前不久，纳税人不是授予人的任何信托。包括作为对他人的授予人信托的信托，代码部分 678。  课税。

Q8.



纳税人在放弃国籍之前被认为具有实益权益的非授予人信托的放弃国籍后分配，根据 871 条规则对“应税部分”征收 30%的预扣税；分配税收没有时间限制。



特殊规则。 

非授予人的信托确认分配的增值财产收益。



纳税人被视为放弃任何条约利益，除非获得特殊的 IRS 裁定，在放弃国籍之日前一天具有可确定的实际利益价值，其收入应包括在收入中。



如果非赠与人信托在放弃国籍后变为赠与人信托，则视为应税分配。



第 906 条规定的潜在外国税收抵免问题。

什么是第 877A 条的合规性要求？3

回答.  美国国税局（IRS）8854 表（初始和年度放弃国籍声明）。该表格必须与最终所得税申报表一起及时提交。如果不是，则将前公民视为适用的放弃美国国籍人士。对于合格的递延补偿项目，非授予人信托的实益权益以及递延纳税的纳税人，还必须提交表格。美国国税局于 2019 年 9 月 6 日宣布了一项新程序，名为“某些特定公民的救济程序”，以使放弃其美国国籍的某些不遵守规定的美国公民能够遵守美国税收规定。该程序的适用范围很窄，适用于非故意欠缴 25,000 美元或以下的欠款且净资产低于 2 百万美元的前公民。4  IRS 表格 W-8CE （放弃国籍和免除条约利益通知）必须与从按市价计价规则之外的其他项目一起提交，并应在放弃国籍后第一次分发之前或放弃国籍之日后 30 天之前提交。  所得税申报表。  放弃国籍年。如果适用的放弃美国国籍人士仅在应纳税年度的一部分（包括放弃国籍日期之前的日期）时间是美国公民或长期居民，则必须提交双重身份申报表。 

双重身份申报表要求适用的放弃美国国籍人士提交 IRS 表格 1040NR（美国非居民外国人所得税申报表），并附上 IRS 表格 1040（美国个人所得税申报表）作为附件。



如果适用的放弃美国国籍人士的放弃国籍日期为 1 月 1 日，则申报人无需提交双重身份申报表。

 随后年度。如果适用的放弃美国国籍人士没有任何美国来源收入，或在来源发生时被完全扣缴，则无需提交该特定年份的 IRS 表格 1040NR。 Q9.

遗产税和赠与税中关于放弃国籍的规定：它们如何适用？5

回答.  一般规则。根据第 2801 条，从适用的放弃美国国籍人士获得“适用的赠与或遗赠”的美国公民或居民将按适用的最高赠与或遗产税率纳税（2020 年为 40%）。  “适用的赠与或遗赠。” 直接或间接通过赠与而获得的财产，或由于某人的死亡或死亡而导致的财产，在获得或死亡时该人是适用的放弃美国国籍人士。  赠与或遗赠包括外国信托的收入或主体对美国人的分配，这归因于对外国信托的“隐含礼物或承保遗赠 ”。  给家庭信托（美国公民）的“适用的赠与或遗赠”是给美国人的赠与，应向信托征税。注意，存在对外国信托进行选择以选择作为国内信托征税的选择。  如何定义“美国居民”一词引起了一个问题–该术语是根据附件 B（房地产和赠与税）中的住所概念还是根据所得税规则（“实质存在”和“绿卡”测试）定义的。  根据第 2801 条，向美国接收者征收赠与或遗产税没有时间限制。  例外情况。  每人每年的赠与税额（15,000 美元）。  有权获得婚姻或慈善扣除的赠与或遗赠。  如果在及时提交的礼品税申报单上报告了“适用的赠与”。  财产包括在适用的放弃美国国籍人士的总财产中，并在及时提交的联邦遗产税申报表中报告。  美国对“适用的赠与或遗赠的遗产”征收的税款可通过为该赠与或遗赠支付的任何外国赠与或遗产税减免。  生效日期。  第 2009-85 号通知规定，在发布指南之前，将推迟收到的“适用的赠与或遗赠”的报告义务和税收义务。  根据美国国税局（IRS）于 2015 年 9 月 9 日发布的第 2801 条下的拟议法规，规定其最终发布日期或之后适用。  评论。  美国接受者有责任确定所收到的赠与或遗产是“适用的赠与或遗赠”，并有责任按照第 2801 条的规定纳税。 

美国纳税人可以要求美国国税局披露捐赠人或死亡的适用的放弃美国国籍人士的纳税申报表，以协助该美国人确定该人的纳税义务。如果生存着的放弃美国国籍的捐助者未授权 IRS 向美国公民或居民揭露他或她的相关申报表，则可以反驳的推定是该外籍捐赠人是适用的放弃美国国籍人士，且每件赠与物都是“适用的赠与”。

 2801 条是否优先于双边遗产或赠与税条约？拟议的法规没有明确声明条约没有被推翻，立法历史没谈到此点。

III.

美国放弃国籍的税法规定对“绿卡”持有人的适用

Q1.

谁是“绿卡”持有人？

回答.  以下个人被视为“绿卡”持有人：  已获得永久在美国居住及工作的外国人。入境后，美国公民和移民服务局签发一张永久居民卡（“绿卡 ”），然后邮寄至该外国人的美国地址。  持移民签证进入美国后，该外国人获得永久或有条件的居民身份。  拥有永久居民卡（I-551）的个人，该证件是美国合法永久居民身份的证明。该卡还可以用作有效的身份证件，并证明该外国人有资格在美国生活和工作。  评论。绿卡持有人需要意识到，出于美国所得税的目的而采取打破常规的立场作为非居民外国人来申请可能会对他们的移民身份产生不利影响，并导致意外的放弃国籍效果。 Q2.

谁是长期居民？

回答.  一人个在“放弃长期居民身份前”（即不再被视为合法的美国永久居民）的过去 15 个纳税年度中，至少在 8 个纳税年度中为合法的美国永久居民”（美国公民除外）（“绿卡”持有人）。与美国公民不同，美国“绿卡”持有者可以因为放弃、刑事定罪或其他遣送出境原因而非自愿撤回其“绿卡 ”。  撤销放弃。在国外居住的“绿卡”持有人有被吊销绿卡的风险。如果“绿卡”持有人连续不在美国一年以上或仅短暂访问美国而长期不在美国（超过 50%），则可能发生这种情况，每年仅一次或两次访问美国，拥有个人住所或美国的银行/退休帐户无法防止放弃。  重新入境许可证可在国外居住期间保持“绿卡”身份。  除非个人放弃条约优惠并以 IRS 表格 8833 和 8854 通知 IRS，否则“条约打破者”被视为自条约开始“ 外国居住”之日起已移居国外。  放弃。“绿卡”持有人可以通过提交 I-407 表格（放弃合法永久居民身份记录）来自愿放弃其“绿卡”，并在第八年的第一天之前通过交回其“绿卡”来避免符合 15 年中具 8 年永久居民的身份的测试。计算机制：  确定放弃“绿卡”前的 15 年期限。

 请注意，如果某个个人在日历年中的任何时候都是美国的合法永久居民，那么该个人就是该年的合法永久居民。例如，12 月 31 日到达美国和 1 月 1 日离开美国都算作是全年。  在以下情况时，15 年中有 8 年是合法永久居民的“绿卡”持有人被视为出于税收目的放弃国籍：1) 如果个人自愿放弃其“绿卡”、2）根据打破条约的规定选择成为外国居民，并且不放弃条约待遇、或 3）政府在行政上或司法上终止外国人的“绿卡”身份。  “绿卡”持有者的税收筹划注意事项：  在第八年的第一天之前提交 I-407 表格，离开美国并交出“绿卡”。  如果“绿卡”持有人希望在不危害“绿卡”身份的情况下回国一段时间，请在旅行之前获得重新入境许可。  如果“绿卡”持有人希望继续在美国居住，但又希望避免被归类为长期居民，请及时交出“绿卡”并获得非移民签证身份。  为美国公民。美国公民可以永远居住在国外而不会失去国籍。  评论。持非移民签证在美国且根据“实质存在”测试是美国居民的外国人，在美国移居规则的规限下不能成为长期居民。

IV.

规划注意事项

Q1.

放弃美国国籍前应考虑什么？

回答.  获得及时准确的移民和税收建议。  拥有有效的第二个国籍或公民身份。  仔细确定所有资产和负债的所有权和价值。  考虑产权如何影响谁拥有哪些资产。 

婚前或婚后协议？

 普通法或共同财产制度是否适用？  与继续作为美国纳税人相比，评估 877A 条和 2801 条税的成本。  离国税 - 一次性费用。  继续作为美国公民，将产生终身终生年度所得税和死亡时潜在的遗产税。  放弃美国国籍人士如何影响多代财富规划？如果放弃美国国籍人士的继承人打算保留美国公民身份，这尤其重要。  如果潜在的放弃美国国籍人士不符合认证测试要求，请该人士在放弃国籍之前考虑如何纠正不合规的情况（并同时对不符合 FBAR 规定的情况进行补救）。 Q2.

一些规划思考

 考虑在放弃美国国籍之前使用统一税款抵免，因为在放弃美国国籍之后无法获得税款抵免。  考虑使用非授权人不可撤销的信托。避免使用“串联”条款；例如，遗产税保留的利息和一般任命权。  放弃国籍前考虑送给配偶的礼物；即，只要您的美国公民配偶未放弃国籍或向非公民配偶馈赠，即可使用无限制的赠与税婚姻扣除（2020 年金额最高为 157,000 美元）。  仔细考虑将礼物送往国外的时间。 

美国国税局（IRS）8854 表格中的说明要求提供资产负债表信息“（i）如果您的资产和负债在您移居国外 5 年之前至首次提交 8854 表格之日止期间发生了重大变化，则必须附上声明，说明更改。”）

 对于计划放弃国籍的长期居民，请考虑可能的计划机会，这些机会与针对所得税目的的居民定义，针对赠与税目的的定义以及潜在的赠与有关。

注意事项：此规划构想需要在与外籍人员有关的移民和税收规定的总体背景下进行仔细评估。  使离国税下的收益或收入最小化的技术。 

 出口税基于财产的公平市场价值（FMV）。考虑传统的房地产规划技术和工具，例如家庭有限合伙制，可以享受估值折扣。在这里，要注意时间安排。在放弃国籍之前，应做好充分的计划。  出售住宅。如果有其他资格获得第 121 条的 250,000 美元（某些已婚纳税人为 500,000 美元）的资格，请考虑在放弃国籍之前出售居所。

在实施任何计划构想之前，与您的移民和税务顾问进行协商很重要。结论有关从移民和税收的角度出发有关放弃国籍的更多信息和问题，请与作者联系。

附注。 1 2

个参见《国际投资》，2020 年 12 月 1 日，“第二本护照和公民身份的需求猛增” 。参见“税收规则刚刚改变：除了情绪之外，放弃国籍在财务上值得吗？ ”，凯文·E·帕克曼，《税收杂志》，2008 年 8

月。请参阅《美国国税局与放弃国籍人士打交道的方法是精神分裂症》，《房地产规划杂志》 Kevin E. Packman，2020 年 1 月。 4 请参见 Holland ＆ Knight 先前的提示文章“新的 IRS 程序为不合规的放弃国籍人士提供成为合规税务人士的有利的途径 ”，2019 年 9 月 11 日。 3

参见“国税局为新的离国税提供一些指导”，Kevin E. Packman 和 Summer A. LePree，税收杂志，2010 年 3 月。

About This Newsletter 有关本期刊 Information contained in this newsletter is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel. Holland & Knight lawyers are available to make presentations on a wide variety of China-related issues. 本期刊所刊载的信息仅供我们的读者为一般教育及学习目的使用。本期刊并不是为作为解决某一法律问题的唯一信息来源的目的所设计，也不应被如此使用。此外，每一法律管辖区域的法律各有不同且随时在改变。如您有关于某一特别事实情况的具体法律问题，我们建议您向合适的律师咨询。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的律师能够对许多与中国相关的问题提出他们的看法及建议。

About the Authors 关于本期作者 Linda Auerbach Allderdice works with clients in a wide range of industries, including transportation and logistics, hospitality, entertainment, consumer products, commercial and residential real estate, event planning and production, banking, personnel services and staffing, data and asset protection, education, manufacturing and distribution, security services, technology, insurance, marketing, legal services, healthcare and retail. She is experienced in handling complex litigation in all aspects of labor and employment law, including wage and hour class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) litigation, discrimination, harassment and whistleblower claims, and trade secret litigation. She also advises clients on compliance with local, state and federal labor and employment laws, handles labor and employment due diligence as part of merger and acquisition (M&A) deal teams, works with clients on litigation prevention strategies and conducts workplace investigations. Deisy Castro focuses her practice on complex wage and hour litigation, in addition to counseling and representing employers in all aspects of labor and employment law. She is well versed in representing employers in wage and hour collective, class and multi-plaintiff actions nationwide, and serving in a lead role in every step of the litigation process. She is equally adept in defending employers in connection with traditional labor and employment matters, such as discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination claims. Andrea Darling de Cortés focuses her practice in the areas of inbound international income and estate tax planning, international tax controversy and compliance, cross-border tax planning and related transactional matters. She has advised clients on a broad array of tax and legal, transactional and operational matters, including U.S. income and estate tax planning for non-U.S. high-net-worth individuals with U.S. and non-U.S. assets, pre-U.S. residency tax planning, planning with respect to foreign investment in U.S. real property and U.S. trade or business analysis. Brooke M. Elliott has experience with tax controversies, as well as domestic and international estate and tax planning. With respect to international planning, She provides tax advice to international clients planning to Copyright © 2021 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

invest in the United States and to domestic clients investing internationally. She also advises clients on international tax compliance and has experience guiding clients through Internal Revenue Service (IRS) examinations and audits. Leon Fresco is an immigration attorney who focuses his practice on providing global immigration representation to businesses and individuals. He also represents clients in administrative law matters, and has extensive appellate, commercial litigation and legislation experience. He was the primary drafter of S.744, the U.S. Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill of 2013. He uses his broad range of experience to develop creative solutions to achieve his clients' objectives, which often may involve multistage representation before administrative agencies and federal courts and the development of policy solutions. Alan Winston Granwell is a tax attorney with more than 45 years of experience in the area of international taxation. In his long and wide-ranging career, he has had the opportunity and privilege to work in the public and private sector. His tax practice encompasses counseling both corporate and private clients. He represents multinational corporations on cross-border planning, transfer pricing, tax controversy and tax compliance. John H. Haney represents employers in a variety of matters involving wage and hour compliance, wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, leave and reasonable accommodation laws, workers' compensation, employee/independent contractor classification, exempt/nonexempt employee classification, trade secret protection, reductions in force, union matters, internal investigations, executive compensation, benefits, payroll and staffing agency vendors, employment on-boarding, state and federal agency investigations, single-plaintiff actions, class actions, representative actions, and occupational safety and health regulations. Mark E. Haranzo focuses his practice on domestic and international private client matters for affluent individuals and their families. His clients include entrepreneurs, corporate executives, family offices, real estate developers, business owners, investors and investment bankers, as well as artists, entertainers, writers, collectors and philanthropists. He has more than 25 years of experience in all aspects of estate and gift planning for individuals and families, including matters with complex multigenerational or multijurisdictional issues. He advises corporate and individual fiduciaries and beneficiaries on all aspects of trust and estate administration. Thomas E. Hill is a highly accomplished national class action defense attorney, and an experienced trial and appellate lawyer. He has served as lead counsel for some of the largest employers in the country, and done so in more than 600 civil lawsuits filed across 30 states. He has also first-chaired more than 250 adversarial proceedings to decision, including jury, bench and administrative trials and arbitrations. The many Fortune 500 companies that he has represented as lead counsel in class litigation and/or at trial include the mostrecognized "brand names" within the financial services, retail, hospitality, healthcare, technology, energy, construction and infrastructure, and gig-economy industries. Kevin E. Packman focuses his practice on advising high-net-worth private clients (whether U.S. or foreign) with tax, trusts and estates. This also includes pre-immigration planning and expatriation planning. He also helps clients come into compliance and resolve tax controversies. He represents clients daily before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and has represented clients before the U.S. Tax Court. William M. Sharp is an attorney in with more than 35 years of experience representing clients in a wide variety of international tax planning and tax controversy cases. He provides international and domestic tax advice to numerous U.S.-based and foreign-based clients, including publicly traded and closely held entities. His tax practice also focuses on globally oriented high-net-worth clients, including U.S. and foreign-based family offices. He has served as lead counsel with respect to U.S. Tax Court, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) appeals

and examination cases. He also has served as lead counsel or co-counsel to well over 1,000 IRS voluntary disclosure cases. Samuel J. Stone represents employers of all sizes on a variety of litigation issues, complex civil and criminal investigations, and advice-and-counsel matters, including first-chairing a number of bench trials, administrative hearings and administrative appeals to decision. His clients include companies in the retail, hospitality, financial, legal services, construction, manufacturing and transportation industries, including international airlines and carriers. Tina Tellado focuses her practice on the representation of employers in all aspects of employment and labor law, with a particular emphasis on wage and hour, discrimination and harassment, and trade secret and non-compete issues. Her practice encompasses counseling clients on workforce issues and representing them when litigation arises. She has extensive experience representing employers in nationwide class and collective actions and complex employment litigation from receipt of the complaint through discovery, class certification and trial. Charles A. Weiss concentrates his practice on technology-driven litigation and transactions, primarily in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and adjacent fields. He also counsels clients on questions of patent validity and infringement, provides a litigator's perspective on prosecution matters, and assists with regulatory and compliance matters. He litigates patent, trade secret, license and false advertising cases in diverse technical areas. He has handled cases over the years involving expression of recombinant proteins and antibodies, controlled release pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostic agents, endocrine and hormone products, nutritional supplements, industrial control systems, food chemistry, nucleic acid diagnostic assays and commercial detergents. He also has extensive experience in the investigation of product counterfeiting and pursuit of those responsible.

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系 Primary Contacts 主要联系人： Hongjun Zhang, Ph.D. 张红军博士 Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.5906 hongjun.zhang@hklaw.com

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律师 New York | +1.212.513.3415 San Francisco | +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515 juan.alcala@hklaw.com

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006 luis.rubio@hklaw.com

Leonard A. Bernstein | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9521 leonard.bernstein@hklaw.com

Roth Kehoe | Atlanta +1.404.817.8519 roth.kehoe@hklaw.com

Francisco J. Sanchez | Tampa +1.813.227.6559 francisco.sanchez@hklaw.com

Christopher W. Boyett | Miami +1.305.789.7790 christopher.boyett.@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991 robert.labate@hklaw.com

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518 evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409 vito.costanzo@hklaw.com

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002 alejandro.landa@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121 jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746 joe.dewey@hklaw.com

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411 jeffrey.mittleman@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482 vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553 david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645 shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183 ron.oleynik@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950 matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481 leonard.gilbert@hklaw.com

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588 doug.praw@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480 stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.1.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551 charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9539 paul.jaskot@hklaw.com

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910 robert.ricketts@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.1.745.5940 jose.zapata@hklaw.com

Holland & Knight – China Practice Newsletter: March - April 2021

Articles inside

THE ABCS OF EXPATRIATION IN THESE CHAOTIC TIMES

CROSS BORDER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS

NEW CALIFORNIA LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS FOR 2021

A PRIMER ON ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE: PART 2

CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER