Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: November - December 2019 by Holland & Knight

期刊

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 NEW CALIFORNIA LAW CODIFIES – AND EXPANDS – STRICT ABC TEST FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS ..........................................................................................................................4 新的加州法律明文规定并扩大用于认定独立承包商身份的严格的 ABC 测试 .............................................10 INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY..................................................................15 可再生能源投资税收抵免 .........................................................................................................................19 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD ISSUED IN CHINA ..................................................................................................................................22 中国仲裁裁决在美国的承认与执行 ...........................................................................................................24 WEALTH SUCCESSION PLANNING FOR CHINESE FAMILIES ............................................................26 中国家庭的财富传承规划 .........................................................................................................................30 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................33 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................33 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................33 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................33

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 1,300 professionals in 28 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 28 个办公室的 1300 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 Law Codifies – and Expands – Strict ABC Test for Independent Contractor Status By Linda Allderdice, John H. Haney and Samuel J. Stone

HIGHLIGHTS:  Effective Jan. 1, 2020, California Assembly Bill (AB) 5 codifies the strict Dynamex "ABC" test for independent contractor classification.  AB 5 expands the reach of the "ABC" test to all wage and hour Labor Code violations, as well as unemployment insurance and workers' compensation.  There are numerous exemptions from the "ABC" test, and each exemption has its own set of complex requirements. ____________________________________ California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 5 into law on Sept. 18, 2019, codifying the strict "ABC" test for employee versus independent contractor classification adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex), 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). Dynamex was limited to California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order violations. But AB 5 expands the reach of the "ABC" test generally to Labor Code violations, as well as to California unemployment insurance and workers' compensation proceedings.

HOW WE GOT HERE: THE APRIL 2018 DYNAMEX DECISION The Dynamex opinion, decided on April 30, 2018, analyzed the then-existing common law test to determine employee versus independent contractor status as established in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations (Borello), 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989), specifically in the framework of the IWC's Wage Orders. Under Borello, the primary test of an employment relationship, known as the "right to control" test, is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired. In addition to the primary "right to control" test, courts considered numerous secondary factors: 1. the right to discharge at will, without cause 2. whether the one performing the services is engaged in a distinct occupation or business 3. the kind of occupation, with reference to whether in the locality the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision 4. the skill required in the particular occupation 5. whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work 6. the length of time for which the services are to be performed 7. method of payment, whether by the time or by the job 8. whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the principal 9. whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of employer-employee After revisiting the Borello test as applied to California Wage Orders, the California Supreme Court in Dynamex rejected the Borello standard for IWC Wage Orders and adopted the "ABC" test which had not previously been applied in California. Under the "ABC" test, a hiring party must establish all of the following conditions for a worker to be considered a contractor rather than an employee: Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

A. that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact B. that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business C. that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed. While Condition A is reminiscent of the primary right-to-control test under Borello, the secondary Borello factors in Dynamex were replaced with the conditions set forth in the B and C prongs of the test. The B and C conditions make it significantly more difficult to classify workers as independent contractors. Almost immediately following the Dynamex decision, various stakeholders began highly publicized and highly contentious lobbying efforts seeking a legislative response to the decision. The end result of such efforts was the passage and Gov. Newsom's signing of AB 5.

AB 5'S CODIFICATION, AND EXPANDED REACH, OF DYNAMEX'S ABC TEST AB 5 adds to the Labor Code new Section 2750.3, effective Jan. 1, 2020, codifying the Dynamex ABC test. The statute provides that a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: A. the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of work and in fact B. the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business C. the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed Notably, whereas the reach of the Dynamex decision was limited to IWC Wage Order violations, AB 5 expands the reach of the ABC test to violations of the Labor Code generally (e.g., business expense reimbursement claims under Labor Code Section 2802 are not in the IWC's Wage Orders), and also for purposes of unemployment insurance and workers' compensation.

THE SEVEN EXEMPTION CATEGORIES A myriad of exemptions in the final version of AB 5 reflect specific industry issues. Each exemption has its own stringent and complex set of requirements, and all exemptions must be closely analyzed on a case-by-case basis. The "exemptions" are also not true carve-outs – an individual whose work meets the exemption requirements is not automatically an independent contractor. Rather, an individual whose work meets the exemptions means that the ABC test does not apply, but the hiring party must still be able to demonstrate that contractor status is appropriate under Borello and/or by other statutory provisions as specified in the bill. In general, however, the exemptions apply to seven categories.  Category 1: Specific occupations. This exemption includes, subject to numerous qualifiers, certain insurance agents, physicians, surgeons, dentists, podiatrists, veterinarians, lawyers, architects,

engineers, private investigators, accountants, securities broker-dealers, investment advisers, direct sales salespersons and commercial fishermen.  Category 2: Certain contracts for "professional services." This exemption includes certain contractual services related to marketing, human resources, travel agents, graphic design, grant writers, fine artists, agents practicing before the Internal Revenue Service, payment processing agents, still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, newspaper cartoonists, estheticians, electrologists, manicurists, barbers and cosmetologists. It is crucial to note that the majority these listed professional services contain specific qualifiers. In addition to those qualifiers, the exemption for this category will apply only if the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following six conditions are satisfied: a. the individual maintains a business location, which may include the individual's residence, that is separate from the hiring entity's business location; nothing in this subdivision prohibits an individual from choosing to perform services at the location of the hiring entity b. if work is performed more than six months after the Jan. 1, 2020, effective date of this section, the individual must have a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession c. the individual has the ability to set or negotiate their own rates for the services performed d. outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set the individual's own hours e. the individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work f.

the individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services

 Category 3: Certain real estate licensees and repossession agencies. The exemption for this category will apply to certain real estate licensees and repossession agencies licensed pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, as specified.  Category 4: Certain bona fide business-to-business contracting relationships. Subject to certain qualifiers, if a business service provider contracts to provide services to another business ("contracting business"), the exemption for this category will apply if the contracting business demonstrates that all of the following 12 conditions are satisfied: a. the business service provider is free from the control and direction of the contracting business entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact b. the business service provider is providing services directly to the contracting business rather than to customers of the contracting business c. the contract with the business service provider is in writing

d. if the work is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the business service provider to have a business license or business tax registration, the business service provider has the required business license or business tax registration e. the business service provider maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contracting business f.

the business service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed

g. the business service provider actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from the hiring entity h. the business service provider advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services i.

the business service provider provides its own tools, vehicles and equipment to perform the services

the business service provider can negotiate its own rates

k. consistent with the nature of the work, the business service provider can set its own hours and location of work l.

the business service provider is not performing the type of work for which a license from the Contractors State License Board is required, pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code

ď Ž Category 5: Certain relationships between contractors and individuals working under a subcontract in the construction industry. The exemption for this category generally applies if the contractor demonstrates that all of the seven conditions are met: a. the subcontract is in writing b. the subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license (except for certain subcontractors providing construction trucking services) c. if the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration d. the subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor e. the subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or to assist in providing the services f.

the subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided

g. the subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed ď Ž Category 6: Certain relationships between referral agencies and service providers. The exemption for this category generally applies if the contractor demonstrates that all of the 10 conditions are met: a. the service provider is free from the control and direction of the referral agency in connection with the performance of the work for the client, both as a matter of contract and in fact b. if the work for the client is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the service provider to have a business license or business tax registration, the service provider has the required business license or business tax registration c. if the work for the client requires the service provider to hold a state contractor's license pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, the service provider has the required contractor's license d. the service provider delivers services to the client under service provider's name, rather than under the name of the referral agency e. the service provider provides its own tools and supplies to perform the services f.

the service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed for the client

g. the service provider maintains a clientele without any restrictions from the referral agency and the service provider is free to seek work elsewhere, including through a competing agency h. the service provider sets its own hours and terms of work and is free to accept or reject clients and contracts i.

the service provider sets its own rates for services performed, without deduction by the referral agency

the service provider is not penalized in any form for rejecting clients or contracts; this subparagraph does not apply if the service provider accepts a client or contract and then fails to fulfill any of its contractual obligations

ď Ž Category 7: Certain relationships related to motor club services. The exemption for this category will apply to a relationship between certain motor clubs and individuals performing services under a contract between the motor club and a third party to provider motor club services using the employees and vehicles of the third party, if the motor club demonstrates that the third party is a separate and independent business from the motor club. Significantly, despite extensive transportation industry lobbying efforts to exempt independent contractor owner-operators from AB 5, the list of exemptions omits trucking except under the narrowly drawn Category 5 exemption. The opposition from the Teamsters union as well as the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California outweighed industry efforts to reach a compromise on establishing clear criteria that would have allowed owner-operators who meet threshold requirements to continue to operate as independent contractors. Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

RETROACTIVITY AB 5 specifically provides that it "does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law, with regard to wage orders of the [IWC] and violations of the Labor Code related to wage orders." Thus, the strong indication is that the ABC test will apply retroactively, at least as to wage and hour claims. However, AB 5 also provides that the exemptions in categories 1 through 7 above will apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law. In addition to adding Section 2750.3 to the Labor Code, AB 5 also amends Section 3351 of the Labor Code, the workers' compensation definition of "employee." AB 5 provides that for purposes of workers' compensation, "employee" will include individuals who are employees under Section 2750.3 "[b]eginning on July 1, 2020," but that the subdivision "shall not apply retroactively." AB 5 also amends Section 621 of the Unemployment Insurance Code to restate the ABC test as one of the definitions of "employee" for unemployment insurance purposes. However, there is no similar statement as to retroactivity and, given that the addition will not become effective until Jan. 1, 2020, it remains to be seen whether the ABC test will apply retroactively for unemployment insurance purposes.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALL BUSINESSES UTILIZING INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND GIG WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA It is anticipated that there will be a variety of legal challenges to AB 5, continued efforts in the Legislature for additional exemptions and revisions, as well as potential political action at the ballot box. In the meantime, businesses that use independent contractors or contract with "gig economy" workers in California should closely review all independent contractor classifications and gig worker arrangements to assess the potential impact of AB 5 on operations and to determine next steps to avoid potential misclassification exposure going forward. For more information on how the new law could affect your business specifically, contact the authors.

新的加州法律明文规定并扩大用于认定独立承包商身份的严格的 ABC 测试原文作者：Linda Allderdice, John H. Haney 及 Samuel J. Stone 重点摘要：  自 2020 年 1 月 1 日起生效，加州众议院法案（AB）5 将认定独立承包商身份的 Dynamex 案件中的严格的“ABC”测试进行明文规定。  AB5 将“ABC”测试的范围扩大到所有违反工资和工时劳动法的行为，以及失业保险和工人赔偿。  “ABC”测试有许多豁免，每个豁免都有自己的一套复杂要求。 ____________________________________ 加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）于 2019 年 9 月 18 日签署了《众议院法案》（AB）5，将加州最高法院在 Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex), 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018)案中所采用的严格的“ABC”测试雇员与独立承包商分类的方法明文立法。Dynamex 案仅适用于加州工业福利委员会（IWC）的工资令的违反。但是 AB5 将“ABC”测试的范围扩展到违反劳动法的行为、以及加州的失业保险和工人赔偿程序。

我们是如何走到这一步的：2018 年 4 月的 DYNAMEX 案件的判决在 2018 年 4 月 30 日所作出的 Dynamex 案判决，分析了在 S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations (Borello), 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) 案中所建立的决定雇员与独立承包商地位的普通法测试，该测试特别是适用于对加州工业福利委员会所建立的的工资令违反的情形。根据 Borello 的判决规定，对雇佣关系的主要测试（即所谓的“控制权”测试），是指接受服务的人是否有权控制完成其所希望的结果的方式和方法。除了主要的 “控制权”测试外，法院还考虑了许多次要因素： 1.

无理由的任意解雇权

提供服务的人是否从事不同的职业或业务

在当地工作这种职业通常是在委托人的指导下完成的，还是在没有监督的情况下由专门人士完成的

特定职业所需的技能

负责人或工人是否为工作人员提供工具、工具和工作场所

执行服务的时间长度

付款方式，无论是按时间还是按件计酬

这项工作是否是委托人一般业务的一部分

双方是否认为他们正在建立雇主与雇员的关系

在重新审视了适用于加州工资命令的 Borello 测试之后，在 Dynamex 案中，加州最高法院驳回了用于工业福利委员会工资命令的 Borello 标准，并采用了先前在加州没有采用过的“ABC”测试。依“ABC”测试，雇佣方必须建立以下所有条件，使工人被视为承包商而不是雇员： A.

根据工作履行合同和事实，工人不受雇佣实体对工作履行的控制和指导

工人从事的工作超出了招聘单位的一般业务范围

工人通常从事与所从事工作性质相同的独立设立的行业、职业或业务

虽然条件 A 使人想起了在 Borello 下的主要控制权利测试，在 Dynamex 案中，Borello 的次要因素被替换为测试中的 B 和 C 条件。B 和 C 条件使得将工人归类为独立承包商的难度大大增加。几乎在 Dynamex 案的判决之后，各利益攸关方立即开始进行高度宣传和极具争议的游说活动，寻求对该决定作出立法回应。这些努力的最终结果是通过并由纽森州长签署了 AB5 法案。

AB5 对 DYNAMEX 案的 ABC 测试进行明文规定和范围扩展 AB5 增加了劳工法的 2750.3 条，从 2020 年 1 月 1 日起生效，对 Dynamex ABC 测试进行了明文规定。法令规定，除非雇用实体证明满足下列所有条件，否则为获得报酬而提供劳动或服务的人应被视为雇员而非独立承包商： A.

根据工作履行合同和事实，该人不受雇佣实体对工作履行的控制和指导

该人从事的工作超出了招聘单位的一般业务范围

该人一般从事与所从事的工作性质相同的独立的行业、职业或业务

值得注意的是，Dynamex 判决的范围仅限于违反 IWC 工资单，而 AB 5 将 ABC 测试的范围扩大到一般违反劳动法的情况（例如，依劳动法第 2802 条下的业务费用报销申请主张且不在 IWC 工资单中）、以及失业保险和工人赔偿。

七类豁免 AB 5 的最终版本中有无数的豁免反映了特定的行业问题。每项豁免都有自己严格而复杂的一套要求，所有豁免都必须逐案仔细分析。“豁免”也不是真正的将其从法案中切割出去——工作符合豁免要求的个人不会自动成为独立承包商。相反地，其工作符合豁免条件的个人意味着 ABC 测试不适用，但雇佣方仍必须能够证明，根据 Borello 和/或法案中规定的其他法定条款，承包商身份是适当的。但是，一般来说，豁免适用于七个类别。  第一类：特定职业。这一豁免包括，在符合众多资格条件的情况下，某些保险代理人、医生、外科医生、牙医、足科医生、兽医、律师、建筑师、工程师、私人调查人员、会计师、证券经纪人、投资顾问、直销销售人员和商业渔民。  第二类：某些“专业服务”合约聘用。这一豁免包括与市场营销、人力资源、旅行社、平面设计、授权作家、优秀艺术家、在国税局执业的代理商、付款处理代理商、静态摄影师、摄影记者、自由撰稿 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

人、编辑、报纸漫画家、美学家有关的某些合同服务，化学师，美甲师，理发师和美容师。必须指出的是，大多数列出的专业服务都包含特定的限定但书。除这些限定但书外，只有在雇用实体证明满足以下六个条件时，才适用这一类别的豁免： a.

个人拥有一个独立于招聘实体的营业地点，该营业地点可能包括个人的住所；本小节中的何内容都不禁止个人选择在招聘实体所在地提供服务

如果工作在本节生效日期 2020 年 1 月 1 日后的六个月以上进行，则该个人必须持有营业执照，此外，还必须持有任何所需的专业执照或个人在其专业中执业的许可证

个人有能力自行制定或协商所提供服务的费率

在项目完成日期和合理工作时间之外，个人有能力设定自己的工作时间

该个人通常从事与另一个雇用实体签订的合同规定的相同类型的工作，或向其他潜在客户展示自己可以从事相同类型的工作

个人在履行服务时习惯性地、定期地行使自由裁量权和独立判断权

 第三类：某些房地产许可证持有人和收回机构。这一类别的豁免将适用于根据加州商业和专业规范规定取得执照的的房地产许可证持有人和房产收回机构。  第四类：某些善意的企业对企业合同关系。在符合某些限定条件的情况下，如果业务服务提供商签订合同，向另一个业务（承包业务）提供服务，如果承包业务证明满足以下个条件，则适用这一类别的豁免： a.

根据工程实施合同和事实上，商业服务提供人不受承包商业实体对工程实施的控制和指导

业务服务提供者直接向承包业务提供服务，而不是向承包业务的客户提供服务

与商业服务提供商的合同是书面的

如果工作是在要求商业服务提供者具有营业执照或营业税登记的管辖区内进行的，则商业服务提供者具有所需的营业执照或营业税登记

业务服务提供人拥有与承包业务的业务或工作地点分开的业务地点

业务服务提供者通常从事与所从事工作性质相同的独立设立的业务

商业服务提供者实际上与其他企业签订合同，提供相同或类似的服务，并在不受雇用实体限制的情况下维护客户

商业服务提供商向公众宣传并展示其提供相同或类似服务的能力

商务服务提供者提供自己的工具、车辆和设备，以履行服务

商务服务提供商可以自行协商价格

根据工作性质，业务服务提供商可以自行设定工作时间和地点

根据《商业和职业法》第 3 节第 9 章（从第 7000 节开始），商业服务提供商不从事需要承包商国家许可证委员会颁发许可证的工作

 第五类：建筑业分包合同下的承包商和个人之间的某些关系。如果承包商证明满足所有七个条件，则此类豁免通常适用： a.

分包合同是书面的

分包商获得承包商国家许可证委员会的许可，且工程在该许可证的范围内（提供施工卡车运输服务的某些分包商除外）

如果分包商的住所地是要求分包商具有营业执照或营业税登记的司法管辖区，则分包商具有所需的营业执照或营业税登记

分包商保持与承包商的业务或工作地点分开的业务地点

分包商有权雇用和解雇其他提供或协助提供服务的人员。

分包商对劳务或服务中的错误或遗漏承担财务责任，这些错误或遗漏可以通过保险、合法授权的赔偿义务、履约保证金或与所提供的劳务或服务有关的保证来证明

分包商通常从事与所执行工作相同性质的独立业务

 第六类：转介机构和服务提供者之间的某些关系。如果承包商证明满足所有通常适用：

个条件，则此类豁免

服务提供方在为客户执行工作时，不受推荐机构的控制和指导，无论是在合同上还是实际上

如果客户的工作是在要求服务提供方具有营业执照或营业税登记的管辖区内进行的，则服务提供方具有所需的营业执照或营业税登记

如果客户的工作要求服务提供方根据《商业和职业法》第 3 部分第 9 章（从第 7000 节开始）持有国家承包商执照，则服务提供方拥有所需的承包商执照

服务提供者以服务提供者的名义向客户提供服务，而不是以转介机构的名义

服务供应商提供其自己的工具和用品来执行服务

服务提供商通常从事与为客户开展的工作相同性质的独立业务

服务提供方在不受转介机构任何限制的情况下维护客户，并且服务提供方可以自由地在其他地方寻求工作，包括通过竞争机构

服务供应商自行设定工作时间和条款，并可自由接受或拒绝客户和合同

服务提供方自行制定所提供服务的费率，不由转介机构扣除

服务提供人不因拒绝客户或合同而受到任何形式的处罚；如果服务提供人接受客户或合同，然后未能履行其任何合同义务，则本项不适用

 第七类：与汽车俱乐部服务相关的某些关系。如果汽车俱乐部证明第三方是一个独立的和汽车俱乐部的独立业务。

值得注意的是，尽管运输业为免除独立承包商业主运营商 AB 5 的责任而进行了广泛的游说，但豁免清单中省略了卡车运输，除非是在狭义的 5 类豁免下。来自货车驾驶工会以及加州建筑和施工行业委员会的反对意见，超过了业界在制定明确标准方面达成妥协的努力，该标准将允许满足门槛要求的业主运营商继续作为独立承包商运营。

回溯适用 AB 5 明确规定，“在关于《工业福利委员会》的工资命令和违反工资命令的劳工争议中，不存在对现有法律的改变，而是对现有法律的声明。”强烈的迹象表明，ABC 测试将追溯适用，至少适用于工资和小时索赔。然而，AB 5 还规定，上文第 1 至第 7 类的豁免将在法律允许的最大范围内追溯到现有的债权和诉讼。除了在《劳动法》中增加第 2750.3 条外，AB 5 还修改了《劳动法》第 3351 条，即“雇员”的工人补偿定义。AB 5 规定，就工人补偿而言，“雇员”将包括自 2020 年 7 月 1 日开始的第 2750.3 条下的雇员。但该款“不得追溯适用”。 AB 5 还修改了《失业保险法》第 621 条，将 ABC 测试作为失业保险中“雇员”的定义之一进行了重申。然而，目前还没有关于追溯的类似声明，而且考虑到这一增加要到 2020 年 1 月 1 日才能生效，ABC 测试是否会追溯适用于失业保险，还有待观察。

加州所有使用独立承包商和工作人员的企业的下一步行动预计 AB 5 将面临各种法律挑战，立法机构将继续努力争取更多的豁免和修订，并可能在选举时采取政治行动。同时，在加州使用独立承包商或与“共享经济”工人签订合同的企业应仔细审查所有独立承包商分类和共享经济工人安排，以评估 AB 5 对运营的潜在影响，并确定下一步措施，以避免今后可能出现的错误分类风险。有关新法律如何具体影响您的业务的更多信息，请与作者联系。

Investment Tax Credits for Renewable Energy By Robert P. Frank As 2019 nears its end, incentives that U.S. tax law offers to encourage international investment in renewable energy are about to change. Wind power plants on which construction begins after 2019 ends will not be eligible, as certain wind projects begun before Dec. 31, 2019, were, for a production tax credit (PTC) based on the amount of electricity that the wind project produces over a 10-year period. But PTCs are not the only incentives that federal tax law provides for renewable energy. Anyone considering investing in the generation of electricity in the United States from renewable sources should know that, even though PTCs will not be available for wind projects that begin construction after 2019, Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Â§ 48 (Section 48) authorizes and has made permanent an investment tax credit (ITC) for qualified solar energy projects (collectively, Solar Projects) and qualified non-solar energy projects (Non-Solar Projects). Among the Solar Projects eligible for an ITC are, with certain exceptions, equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool, and provide hot water for use in, a structure, or to provide solar process heat and certain fiber-optic solar projects. Fiber-optic solar collects sunlight using small mirrors, focuses it on light-transmitting fibers, and then distributes sunlight throughout a building's interior via fiber optic cables. Excluded from the solar investments eligible for an ITC are both passive solar systems, which collect heat from the sun and retain it in heat-storing materials, and equipment used to generate electricity to heat a swimming pool. Non-Solar Projects include certain kinds of fuel cells, geothermal properties, geothermal heat pumps, microturbines, combined heat and power systems, and small wind projects. The credit rate of the ITC varies depending on the type of Solar Project or Non-Solar Project and on when construction of that project commences. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on June 22, 2018, issued Notice 2018-59 (IRS Guidance), a guidance to clarify how to determine when construction has commenced. This article examines how credit rates for the Section 48 ITC vary, what the IRS Guidance says about how to determine when construction has commenced, and the continuity that is required once construction has commenced for the purpose of claiming the ITC.

HOW THE ITC WORKS Under Section 48, businesses that install, develop or finance Solar Projects or Non-Solar Projects may claim a one-time reduction in federal income taxes that the businesses would otherwise pay the federal government. This reduction is the ITC. The amount of the ITC is calculated as a percentage of the taxpayer's basis in the qualified energy project.1 Generally, for tax purposes, the basis will be the cost of acquiring or constructing the energy property eligible for an ITC. To have a particular credit rate apply to an investment in a qualified energy property, Section 48 was amended in 2018 to replace an earlier requirement that the qualified energy project be placed into service by a certain date with the current requirement to commence construction by a certain date. The expiration dates for the availability of a particular credit rate of an ITC are the deadlines by which construction must begin if that particular credit rate is to apply. For Solar Projects on which construction commences before Jan. 1, 2020, the ITC is equal to 30 percent of the basis invested in the Solar Project. If construction of a Solar Project begins in 2020, the ITC equals 26 percent of the basis invested. If such construction begins in 2021, the ITC equals 22 percent of the basis invested. On or after Jan. 1, 2022, the ITC for all Solar Projects, except fiber-optic solar, is permanently set at 10 percent. An ITC is not permanently available for fiber-optic solar. For a fiber-optic Solar Project on which construction commences during 2021, an ITC of 22 percent can be claimed as long as that project is placed into service before Jan. 1, 2024. But if construction of a fiber-optic solar project commences on or after Jan. 1, 2022, or if construction of a fiber-optic project begins before Jan. 1, 2022, but that project is not placed into service before Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Jan. 1, 2024, an ITC is not available for the fiber-optic solar investment. For Non-Solar Projects for which an ITC may be available, the availability of the ITC depends on the sort of Non-Solar Project, the date on which construction of that project commences and the date on which it is placed into service.

DECIDING WHEN CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES Once construction of the qualified Solar Project has commenced, the credit rate applicable to the year in which construction commenced can be claimed. The IRS Guidance allows taxpayers to use one of two ways to demonstrate that construction of an energy property has commenced: 1) a physical work test (Physical Work Test) and 2) a 5 percent safe harbor (Five Percent Safe Harbor). Both methods, the IRS Guidance expressly states, require that the taxpayer who would claim the ITC to make continuous progress toward completion of the qualified energy property once construction has commenced. Under the Physical Work Test, construction of the qualified energy property commences when physical work of a significant nature begins. This test focuses on the nature of the work performed, not on the amount or cost of the work. As long as the physical work is significant, there is no fixed minimum of work or monetary or percentage threshold required to satisfy the Physical Work Test. The physical work can be done either on-site, where the qualified energy project will be located, or off-site, where components, support structures such as racks and rails, inverters, transformers and power conditioning equipment for the project are manufactured. The IRS Guidance provides what it calls a nonexclusive list of examples of on-site physical work of a significant nature for each kind of qualified energy property â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both Solar Projects and Non-Solar Projects. For Solar Projects other than fiber-optic solar, the installation of racks or other structures to affix photovoltaic panels, collectors or solar cells to a site is on-site physical work of a significant nature. For fiber-optic solar, the installation of collectors, concentrators, tracking systems, bundles of optical fibers or of fixtures within a structure constitutes on-site physical work of a significant nature. For each sort of Non-Solar Property, Section 4.02(2) of the IRS Guidance should be consulted to see what actions constitute commencement of construction for the purposes of claiming the ITC. The IRS Guidance also states what is not considered to be physical work of a significant nature. Preliminary activities, even if their cost can be properly included in the depreciable basis of the energy property, and even if the work for them is physical, do not qualify as physical work of a significant nature. Examples of preliminary activities that are not physical work of a significant nature are planning or designing; mapping or modeling to assess a resource; obtaining permits and licenses; conducting geophysical, gravity, magnetic, seismic and resistivity surveys; performing environmental and engineering studies; clearing a site; conducting test drilling to determine the condition of soil, including to test the strength of a foundation; and removing any existing foundations, turbines, towers, solar panels or other components that will not be part of the energy property. Work done to produce components of energy property that are either in existing inventory or normally held by a vendor is also not considered physical work of a significant nature and therefore cannot be cited to demonstrate commencement of construction for the purposes of claiming an ITC. Physical work of a significant nature can be performed by the taxpayer, a contractor or a subcontractor. But work performed for the taxpayer by other persons should be done under a binding written contract. If a taxpayer pays or incurs 5 percent or more of the total cost of any qualified energy property and thereafter makes a continuous effort to advance toward completion of that energy property, construction of the energy property will be considered as having begun for the purposes of the ITC. To determine if the Five Percent Safe Harbor applies, all costs properly included in the depreciable basis of the energy property are to be taken into account. For the purposes of this calculation, the total cost of the energy property does not include the cost of land or any property not integral to the energy property. Multiple energy properties may be operated as a single project along with components, such as a computer control system, that serve some or all of these plants. The IRS Guidance specifies factors which indicate that multiple energy properties are operated as a single project. When such indications exist and a single project consists of multiple energy properties, if the total cost of the Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

energy property exceeds its anticipated total cost, so that the amount the taxpayer actually paid or incurred with respect to a single project turns out to be less than 5 percent of the total cost of the single project at the time it is placed into service, the Five Percent Safe Harbor is not fully satisfied. But the Five Percent Safe Harbor will be satisfied, and the Section 48 ITC may be claimed, for some, though not all, of the energy properties within a single project as long as the aggregate cost of the energy properties for which the ITC would be claimed is not more than 20 times greater than the amount the taxpayer paid or incurred.2

CONTINUITY AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES Whether the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor is used to establish the commencement of construction, in either case the IRS imposes a requirement of continuity toward completion of the qualified energy project. For the Physical Work Test, a continuous program of construction is necessary. Whether the taxpayer who would claim the ITC maintains a continuous program of construction to satisfy the continuity requirement depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. While the IRS does not provide examples of what such relevant facts and circumstances are, it does say that a continuous program of construction must involve continuing work of a physical nature. For the Five Percent Safe Harbor, the IRS has specified a noninclusive list of facts and circumstances that will count toward completion of either a Solar Project or a Non-Solar Project. These facts and circumstances include paying or incurring additional amounts included in the total cost of the energy property; entering into binding written contracts for the manufacture, construction or production of components of property for future work to construct the energy property; obtaining required permits; and, finally, performing physical work of a significant nature. Once construction has commenced and continued, as long as the disruptions are beyond the control of the taxpayer, the IRS will not consider disruptions in either continuous construction or continuous efforts to advance toward completion to indicate that the taxpayer has failed to meet the requirement of continuity. The IRS Guidance gives what it calls a nonexclusive list of 11 disruptions that will not be considered as meaning that the taxpayer has failed to meet the continuity requirement. Among these disruptions are delays caused by severe weather or natural disasters; delays in obtaining permits or licenses from federal, state, local or Indian tribal governments; delays at the written request of regulators regarding matters of public safety; interconnection-related delays involving construction of new transmission or distribution lines; delays in the manufacture of custom components; delays to labor stoppages or the inability to obtain specialized equipment of limited availability; delays due to the presence of endangered species; delays in financing; and delays due to supply shortages. Under either the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor, if an energy project is not placed in service before the end of the fourth calendar year after the calendar year in which construction commenced, whether the energy project satisfies the requirement for continuity will be determined by the relevant facts and circumstances.

TRANSFERABILITY A taxpayer that owns a qualified energy property on the date such property is originally placed in service may elect to claim the Section 48 ITC concerning the property even if the taxpayer did not own the energy property at the time that construction commenced. Because an energy property eligible for the ITC can be any Solar Project completely constructed, reconstructed or erected by the taxpayer, or can be acquired by the taxpayer if the original use of such property commences with the taxpayer, tax equity investors may – and typically do – acquire ownership in the project company just before completing construction. With certain exceptions detailed in the IRS Guidance, a fully or partially developed energy property may be transferred without losing its qualification for the ITC under the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor.

CONCLUSION ITCs remain available after 2019 ends for Solar Projects and Non-Solar Projects. Planning for them should be coordinated with the development of the site on which they will be located. Holland & Knight can advise a potential investor both on the availability of the ITC and on the development and permitting of the site where a Solar Property or Non-Solar Property can be or is located.

____________________________________ 1

As to the issue of qualified basis, it is worth noting that cases involving the now expired cash grants program under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) (ARRA) are litigating the issue of tangible qualified basis. In Alta Wind I Owner Lessor C v. United States, 897 F.3d 1365, 1373 - 74 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that power purchase agreements, "or at least some portion thereof," were customer-based intangible assets and therefore not part of the tangible qualified basis. It must be expected that the government will maintain a similar position as to ITCs, since Section 1603 cash grants were based on the ITC rules. 2

The IRS Guidance provides the following example: in 2018, a taxpayer incurs $25,000 in costs to construct Project A, comprised of five energy properties that will be operated as a single project. Taxpayer anticipates that each energy property will cost $100,000 for a total cost for Project A of $500,000. Thereafter, the taxpayer makes continuous efforts to advance toward completion of Project A. The taxpayer timely places Project A in service in a later year. At that time, the actual total cost of Project A amounts to $600,000, with each energy property costing $120,000. Although the taxpayer did not pay or incur 5 percent of the actual total cost of Project A in 2018, the taxpayer will be treated as satisfying the Five Percent Safe Harbor in 2018 with respect to four of the energy properties, as their actual total cost of $480,000 is not more than 20 times greater than the $25,000 in costs incurred by the taxpayer. Thus, the taxpayer may claim the Â§ 48 credit based on $480,000, the cost of four of the energy properties.

可再生能源投资税收抵免原文作者: Robert P. Frank 随着 2019 年接近尾声，美国税法提供给国际投资可再生能源项目的激励措施即将改变。不像某些在 2019 年 12 月 31 日前开工的风电项目，在 2019 年结束后开始建设的风电厂将没有资格获得根据风电项目将在 10 年期间内产出的发电量的税额抵免（PTC）。但 PTC 并不是联邦税法对可再生能源提供的唯一激励措施。任何考虑在美国投资可再生能源发电的人士都应该知道，尽管 PTC 不适用于 2019 年后开始建设的风电项目，《美国国内税收法典》（美国法律汇编第 26 部第 48 条）的第 48 条（第 48 条），授权并永久性地对合格的太阳能项目（统称为太阳能项目）和合格的非太阳能项目（非太阳能项目）给予投资税额抵免（ITC）。除某些例外情况外，符合 ITC 资格的太阳能项目包括使用太阳能发电、加热或冷却、提供热水用于一机构上、或提供太阳能产生的热气和某些光纤太阳能项目的设备。光纤太阳能利用小镜子收集太阳光，将其聚焦在光传输光纤上，并通过光纤电缆将太阳光分布到建筑物内部。符合 ITC 资格的太阳能投资不包括从太阳收集热量并将其保存在蓄热材料中的被动太阳能系统和用于发电以加热游泳池的设备。非太阳能项目包括某些类型的燃料电池、地热物体、地热热泵、微型涡轮机、热电联供系统和小型风力发电项目。ITC 的抵免比率因太阳能项目或非太阳能项目的类型以及该项目何时开工而有所不同。美国国内税务局（以下简称美国国税局）于 2018 年 6 月 22 日发布了 2018-59 号通知（美国国税局指导），该指导对如何确定何时开工一事作出了说明。本文将探讨第 48 条所规定 ITC 的抵免比率是如何有所不同的、美国国税局关于如何确定何时开始施工的指导意见是什么、以及一旦开始施工后申请 ITC 所需的连续性要求为何。

ITC 如何操作根据第 48 条，安装、开发或对太阳能项目或非太阳能项目提供融资的企业可要求一次性减免企业将向联邦政府缴纳的联邦所得税。这项减免即是 ITC。ITC 的金额按纳税人在合格能源项目中的税基的百分比计算。1 一般来说，出于税收目的，税基是获得或建造符合 ITC 资格的能源资产的成本。为了使特定的减免比率适用于对合格能源资产的投资，第 48 条在 2018 年进行了修订，以取代先前关于合格能源项目需在某一日期前投入使用的要求，而目前的要求是在某一日期前开始建设。某一 ITC 减免比率的适用截止日期为适用该特定减免比率必须开工的最后日期。对于 2020 年 1 月 1 日前开工建设的太阳能项目，ITC 为该太阳能项目投资税基的 30%。如果太阳能项目在 2020 年开始建设，ITC 为投资税基的 26%。如果此类建设在 2021 年开始，则 ITC 为投资税基的 22%。2022 年 1 月 1 日当天或之后，除光纤太阳能项目外，所有太阳能项目的 ITC 将永久设定为 10%。ITC 并非永适用于光纤太阳能。对于 2021 年开始施工的光纤太阳能项目，只要该项目在 2024 年 1 月 1 日前投入使用，就可以要求 22%的 ITC。但是，如果光纤太阳能项目的建设在 2022 年 1 月 1 日或之后开始，或者如果光纤项目的建设在 2022 年 1 月 1 日之前开始，但该项目在 2024 年 1 月 1 日之前未投入使用，则光纤太阳能投资不适用 ITC。对于可适用 ITC 的非太阳能项目，ITC 的适用与否取决于非太阳能项目的类型、项目开工日期和投入使用日期。

决定何时视为开工的因素合格的太阳能项目一经开工，可申请适用于开工年份的减免比率。美国国税局的指导允许纳税人使用两种方式之一证明能源资产的建设已经开始：1）实质工作测试（实质工作测试）；和 2）百分之五（5%）安全港（百分之五安全港）。就这两种方法，美国国税局的指导明确规定要求将申请 ITC 的纳税人在一旦建设已经开始后需不断地推展以完成合格的能源产业项目。 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

依实质工作试验，当重要的实质工作开始时，合格能源资产的施工视为已经开始。这个测试的重点是所执行工作的性质，而不是工作的数量或成本。只要实质工作是重要的，就没有满足实质工作测试所需的固定最低工作、金额或百分比门槛。实质工作可以在合格能源项目所在地的现场进行，也可以在项目部件、支撑结构（如机架和轨道、逆变器、变压器和电力调节设备）的场外进行。美国国税局的指导提供了一份非穷尽性清单，列出了各类合格能源资产（包括太阳能项目和非太阳能项目）的重要现场实质工作的实例。对于光纤太阳能以外的太阳能项目，安装机架或其他结构将光伏板、集热器或太阳能电池固定在现场是一项重要的现场实质工作。对于光纤太阳能，在一个结构内安装集热器、集中器、跟踪系统、光纤束或固定装置构成了一项重要的现场实质工作。对于每种非太阳能资产，应参考美国国税局指导第 4.02（2）条，以了解为申请 ITC 的目的，哪些行动构成开工。美国国税局的指导方针还规定了哪些不被视为具有重要性质的实质工作。前期活动，即使其成本可适当计入能源资产的折旧税基，即使其工作是实质工作，也不符合重要实质工作的资格。不属于重要实质工作的前期活动的例子包括规划或设计；测绘或建模以评估资源；获得许可证和执照；进行地球物理、重力、磁力、地震和电阻率测量；进行环境和工程研究；清理场地；进行测试以确定土壤的状况，包括测试地基的强度；去除任何现有的地基、涡轮机、塔楼、太阳能板或其他不属于能源性质的部件。为生产现有库存或通常由供应商持有的能源资产组成部分而进行的工作也不被视为具有重要性质的实质工作，因此不能被引用来证明为申请 ITC 已开始施工。纳税人、承包商或分包商可以进行重要的实质工作。但其他人为纳税人所做的工作，应当按照有约束力的书面合同进行。如果纳税人支付或承担任何合格能源资产总成本的百分之五或以上，并在此后继续努力推进该能源资产的竣工，则能源资产的建设将被视为就 ITC 的目的已经开始。为确定是否适用百分之五的安全港，应考虑能源资产折旧税基中适当包含的所有成本。就本计算而言，能源资产的总成本不包括土地成本或任何不属于能源资产的财产成本。多个能源资产可以与例如服务于这些电厂的部分或全部的计算机控制系统组件视为一起运行的单一项目。美国国税局指导规定了表明多个能源资产作为单个项目运行的因素。存在这种情况且一个项目由多个能源资产组成时，如果能源属性的总成本超过其预期总成本，那么纳税人就单个项目实际支付或发生的金额不到投入使用当时单个项目总成本的百分之五。则百分之五的安全港还不能完全满足。但对于一个项目中的某些（虽然不是全部）能源资产，只要将申请 ITC 的能源资产的总成本不超过纳税人支付或产生的金额的 20 倍，将符合百分之五的安全港，并且可以申请第 48 条规定的 ITC。2

开工后的连续性无论是使用实质工作测试还是百分之五安全港来确定施工的开始，在任何一种情况下，美国国税局都对合格能源项目的完成提出了连续性要求。对于实质工作测试，需要一个连续的施工程序。申请 ITC 的纳税人是否维持一个持续的建设计划，以满足持续性的要求，取决于相关的事实和情况。虽然美国国税局没有提供此类相关事实和情况的例子，但它确实说，一个连续的施工计划必须涉及实质性质的持续工作。对于百分之五的安全港，美国国税局规定了一份非穷尽性的清单列举出计入太阳能项目或非太阳能项目的事实和情况。这些事实和情况包括支付或产生包括在能源资产总成本中的额外金额、签订具有约束力的书面合同、为未来建造能源资产的工作制造、建造或生产财产的组成部分、获得所需的许可、及最后履行具有重要性质的实质工作。一旦施工开始并继续，只要干扰超出纳税人的控制范围，美国国税局将不会因这些对连续施工或持续努力推进竣工的干扰而认为纳税人未能满足连续性要求。美国国税局的指导意见给出了一份非穷尽性的清单，其中列出了 11 项不意味着纳税人未能满足连续性要求的干扰。其中包括恶劣天气或自然灾害造成的延误、从联邦、州、地方或印第安部落政府获得许可证或执照的延误、监管机构就公共安全事项提出书面请求时的延误、涉及新输电或配电建设的互联相关延误、生产线、定制部件制造的延误、劳动力停工或无法获得有限可用的专用设备的延 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

误、由于濒危物种的存在而造成的延误、融资的延误、以及由于供应短缺而造成的延误。无论是实质工作测试还是百分之五的安全港，如果一个能源项目在开工日历年后的第四个日历年结束前未投入使用，则该能源项目是否满足连续性的要求将由相关事实和情况决定。

可转让性在合格能源资产最初投入使用之日拥有该资产的纳税人，即使在施工开始时纳税人不拥有该能源资产，也可以选择就该资产向 ITC 第 48 条提出申请。由于符合 ITC 资格的能源资产可以是由纳税人完全建造、重建或建造的任何太阳能项目，或者可以由纳税人购买获得，如果这种资产的原始使用是从纳税人开始的，那么税收权益投资者可以而且通常是在项目完成之前获得项目公司的所有权。除美国国税局指导中详细说明的某些例外情况外，完全或部分开发的能源资产可在不丧失 ITC 实质工作测试或百分之五安全港资格的情况下转让。

结论太阳能项目和非太阳能项目的 ITC 在 2019 年结束后仍然可适用。他们的规划应该与他们所在地的发展相协调。 Holland & Knight 可以就 ITC 的可适用性以及太阳能或非太阳能物业所在地的开发和许可向潜在投资者提供建议。

________________________________________ 关于合格税基的问题，值得注意的是，根据 2009 年《美国复苏和再投资法》（Pub.L.111-5）（简称“ARRA”）正在就有形的合格基础问题提起诉讼。在 Alta Wind I 中，出租人 C 诉美国，897 F.3D 13651373-74（联邦美国联邦巡回上诉法院（U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit）认为，购电协议“或至少部分协议”是基于客户的无形资产，因此不属于有形合格税基的一部分。必须预计，政府将保持与 ITC 类似的地位，因为第 1603 款的现金赠款是根据 ITC 的规则发放的。 1

美国国税局的指导意见提供了以下例子：2018 年，纳税人为建设 A 项目承担 25000 美元的成本，该项目由五个能源资产组成，将作为一个单一项目运营。纳税人预计，每个能源资产将花费 10 万美元，项目 A 的总成本为 50 万美元。此后，纳税人继续努力推进 A 项目的完成。纳税人在以后的一年中及时将 A 项目投入使用。当时，A 项目的实际总成本为 60 万美元，每个能源物业的成本为 12 万美元。尽管纳税人在 2018 年没有支付或承担项目 A 实际总成本的 5%，但纳税人将被视为在 2018 年满足四项能源资产 5%的安全港，因为其实际总成本 480000 美元不超过纳税人。因此，纳税人可根据 4 处能源资产的成本 480000 美元申请第 48 条信用额度。 2

Recognition and Enforcement in the United States of an Arbitration Award Issued in China By Adolfo E. Jiménez and Katharine Menéndez de la Cuesta Chinese arbitration institutions decide an ever-increasing number of arbitrations each year. One of the most well-known Chinese arbitral institutions in mainland China administering international disputes is the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Because many Chinese international commercial disputes are resolved through arbitration, enforcement of arbitral awards is important. This article summarizes the procedure in the United States to enforce an arbitral award issued in the People's Republic of China (China) so that parties are able to execute and attach assets in the U.S. First, with regards to the recognition and enforcement of an award, China is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) (Convention). Assuming that the award resolves differences arising out of legal relationships that are considered commercial under the national law of China, the award would be enforced in the U.S. under Chapter 2 to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the U.S. statute which codifies the Convention in the U.S. The party seeking enforcement must file a petition to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award in any U.S. district court where an action between the parties to the arbitration could be brought "save for the arbitration agreement." FAA, S. 204. The district court must have personal jurisdiction over the party resisting enforcement in order to recognize and enforce the arbitration award against that party. Personal jurisdiction is generally established in the United States based on contacts by a defendant or creditor with the state. The contacts need to be enough to meet minimum constitutional requirements, and may be satisfied by bringing the enforcement action in the states where its principal place of business is located or otherwise having sufficient contacts with the U.S. state. Under Section 207 of the FAA, a court "shall" confirm an award "unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention." The party resisting enforcement bears the burden to prove that at least one of the seven grounds to deny enforcement under the Convention is met. Even where one of the seven grounds exist, a decision to deny enforcement is within a court's discretion. Generally, Convention awards are enforced in the U.S. unless at least one of the seven grounds is met. These grounds are:  incapacity of the parties to the agreement or invalidity of the agreement to arbitrate  failure to give proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or a party's inability to present its case  inclusion in the award of a difference not contemplated by the submission to arbitration or of decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration  composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or the applicable law  nonbinding nature of the award on the parties or vacatur or suspension of the award by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made  the subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that country, or  the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the country where enforcement is sought Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

U.S. courts construe these defenses "narrowly, to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts." Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan, 364 F.3d 274, 288 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co., Inc. v. Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier, 508 F.2d 969, 974, 976 (2d Cir.1974)). The burden is high and most awards are confirmed. For example, on May 30, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York granted a petition to enforce an arbitral award rendered in Tianjin, China, by the CIETAC. The court denied the motion to dismiss the petition to enforce despite the alleged forgery in the underlying agreement. The court found that none of the grounds to deny enforcement of an arbitral award alleged by the respondent under the Convention were satisfied. The case is Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Int'l Trade Serv. Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng Chempharm Inc. USA, No. 17-CV-4130 (JS)(AYS), 2018 LEXIS 90106 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2018). Two years earlier, however, on Aug. 2, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied enforcement of a Chinese award because the Notice of Arbitration had been sent to a non-Chinese party in Chinese. The court held that the Chinese-language notice was not "reasonably calculated to apprise the opposing party of the proceedings." To reach this conclusion the court considered that all of the previous communications between the parties had been in English, the contract provided that English would govern the relationship between the parties by requiring that the English language version of the contract would control in case of discrepancy and memorialized the parties' understanding that the dispute resolution proceedings would be in English. The case is CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co. v. LUMOS LLC (10th Cir. 2016). Second, once recognition and enforcement has been granted, proper execution of assets may be requested. State law governs the procedures for execution of a recognized award, even where execution is sought in federal court. The first step is to identify assets to be executed, and post-recognition discovery in aid of execution is available. State law generally defines which assets are subject to or exempt from execution.

中国仲裁裁决在美国的承认与执行原文作者：Adolfo E. Jiménez 及 Katharine Menéndez de la Cuesta 中国仲裁机构每年裁决的仲裁案件越来越多。中国大陆最知名的仲裁机构之一是中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）。因为在中国许多国际商业争议都是通过仲裁解决的，所以仲裁裁决的执行很重要。本文概述了美国执行在中华人民共和国（中国）作出的仲裁裁决的程序，以便各方能够在美国执行和扣押资产。首先，关于承认和执行仲裁裁决，中国是《联合国承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1958 年 6 月 10 日，纽约）的签署国。假设裁决解决了根据中国国内法被视为商业的法律关系所产生的纠纷，该裁决将可根据美国为该公约所进行的国内立法《联邦仲裁法》（FAA）第 2 章在美国申请执行，寻求执行的一方必须向任何可以受理“除仲裁条款以外”仲裁当事人可提出诉讼的美国联邦地方法院提交承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的申请《联邦仲裁法第 204 条》。美国联邦地方法院必须对拒绝执行的一方拥有属人管辖权以承认和执行针对该方的仲裁裁决。属人管辖权通常是在美国根据被告或债权人与州政府的联系而建立的。该接触必须足以满足最低宪法要求，并可通过在其主要营业地所在州或其他有充分接触的州提起执行申请以满足该要求。根据《联邦仲裁法》第 207 条，法院“应”确认一项裁决，除非它发现可拒绝或延期承认或执行该公约所指明的裁决的情况之一。“拒绝执行的一方有责任证明存在拒绝执行公约的七项情况其中至少一项。而即使七个情况之一存在，法院也有权决定是否拒绝执行。一般来说，依公约作成的裁决是可被在美国执行的，除非至少存在下列七个情况之一。这些情况是：  协议双方无达成仲裁协议的能力或仲裁协议无效  没有被给予指定仲裁员或者进行仲裁程序的适当通知，或者由于其他情况而不能对案件陈述意见  裁决涉及仲裁协议所没有包含到的争执；或者裁决内含有对仲裁协议范围以外事项的决定  仲裁机构的组成或仲裁程序不符合当事各方的协议或适用法律  裁决对当事人还没有约束力，或者裁决已经由作出裁决的国家或据其法律作出裁决的国家的管辖当局撤销或停止执行。  争执的事项，依照该国家的法律，不可以用仲裁方式解决，或  承认或执行裁决将违反寻求执行的国家的公共政策美国法院对这些抗辩进行“严格”的解释，以鼓励在国际合同中承认和执行商业仲裁协议。." Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan, 364 F.3d 274, 288 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co., Inc. v. Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier, 508 F.2d 969, 974, 976 (2d Cir.1974))。举证责任很重，大多数的裁决都得到了确认。例如，2018 年 5 月 30 日，美国纽约东区地方法院法官乔安娜·西伯特（Joanna Seybert）批准了一项请求，要求执行中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）在中国天津作出的仲裁裁决。法院拒绝了要求驳回强制执行请求的提议，尽管所依据的协议中存在所谓的伪造行为。法院认为，被告根据公约所指称的拒绝执行仲裁裁决的任何理由都不成立。Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Int'l Trade Serv. Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng Chempharm Inc. USA, No. 17-CV-4130 (JS)(AYS), 2018 LEXIS 90106 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2018)。然而，两年前的 2016 年 8 月 2 日，美国第十巡回上诉法院驳回了中国裁决的执行，因为仲裁通知是用中文发给非中国当事人的。法院认为，中文通知并非“合理地向对方当事人通报诉讼情况”。为得出这一结论，法院认为双方以前的所有通信都是英文的，合同规定，双方之间的关系以英语为准，要求在出现差异时以合同的英语版本为 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

准，并记住双方的理解，即争端解决程序将采用英语。本案为 CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co. v. LUMOS LLC (10th Cir. 2016)。其次，一旦批准承认和执行，可要求适当执行资产。州法律规定了执行认可裁决的程序，即使在联邦法院要求执行裁决的情况下也是如此。第一步是确定要执行的资产，并进行有助于执行的承认后的证据揭露程序。州法律一般会规定哪些资产应可执行或免于执行。

Wealth Succession Planning for Chinese Families By Christopher Boyett, Nichole Scott and Seth Entin Without proper planning, many high-net-worth Chinese families may struggle to retain their wealth and maintain family harmony across multiple generations. To ensure proper planning, this article addresses how to provide a grantor and his or her family the tools to develop a family governance structure that is tailored to their needs.

THE FAMILY TRUST Characteristics and Advantages of Foreign Grantor Trusts A trust is one of the most effective and efficient structures used by families to retain wealth and provide financial governance. Specifically, a trust can be settled to own family assets, including family businesses and holding companies (Family Trust). By transferring the interests held in the family businesses and the family's other assets to the Family Trust, the Family Trust can be used as the vehicle for tax planning and succession planning while also providing confidentiality and asset protection from claims by third-party creditors. The Family Trust can either be governed by U.S. domestic law or the laws of an offshore jurisdiction. The determination of the appropriate governing jurisdiction will depend on the goals of the family and the jurisdiction of the appointed trustee. Other considerations will include which jurisdiction provides the best tax planning, and sufficient asset protection for the family. Additionally, if the family decides to establish a private family trust company (PFTC), consideration will need to be given to the PFTC legislation in the different jurisdictions. A trust is a "domestic trust" (aka U.S. Trust) if 1) a court within the United States has the ability to exercise primary supervision over the trust's administration (the "court test"), and 2) U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust, which include the authority to remove and replace the trustee, to direct investments, to amend or revoke the trust, etc. (the "control test"). If either of the foregoing requirements is not met, the trust at issue is a "foreign trust" for U.S. federal tax purposes. In order to establish a foreign trust, the trust would intentionally fail to meet one of the above requirements. Once a determination has been made as to whether a trust should be a "domestic trust" or a "foreign trust," the next step is to determine whether the trust should be a "grantor trust" or a "non-grantor trust." It is often advantageous to structure the Family Trust as a foreign grantor trust. If the grantor is a non-U.S. tax resident and the trust does not earn any income that would subject such an individual to U.S. tax liability, there should be no U.S. tax liability associated with the contemplated foreign grantor trust structure.1 Specifically, there are two approaches to ensure that the Family Trust is classified as a foreign grantor trust for U.S. federal tax purposes. The first method of achieving foreign grant trust status is for the grantor of the trust to retain the power to revest trust assets without the approval or consent of any other person or with the consent of a related or subordinate party who is subservient to the grantor. The second approach to obtain "grantor trust" status is to limit the beneficiaries of the Family Trust to the grantor and his or her spouse during the grantor's lifetime. Upon the grantor's death, the Family Trust would become a non-grantor trust with family members as beneficiaries. As a foreign non-grantor trust, the Family Trust should only be subject to U.S. income tax on certain types of U.S. sourced income, similar to the taxation of a non-U.S. tax resident individual; any distributions of foreign source income from a foreign non-grantor trust to non-U.S. tax residents should generally not subject such beneficiaries to any U.S. income taxes. Following the passing of the grantor,

the Family Trust will become a foreign non-grantor trust and should only need to file a U.S. income tax return if the Family Trust earns U.S. sourced income that would subject them to U.S. tax liability. The U.S. wealth transfer taxation system is comprised of three primary taxation schemes: 1) the gift tax, 2) estate tax and 3) generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax. When they apply, these taxes tax the transfer of wealth. The gift tax is a tax on the transfer by gift of property by one individual to another; the tax applies regardless of whether the donor intends the transfer to be a gift. The estate tax is a tax on one's right to transfer property at one's death. The GST tax is a tax that results when there is a transfer of property by gift or inheritance to a beneficiary who is at least 37Â˝ years younger than the donor. With respect to foreign grantor trusts, the GST tax only applies to transfers by non-U.S. tax residents 1) at death, to the extent that the transferred property is U.S. situs and is subject to the estate tax, and 2) during life, to the extent that the transferred property is U.S. situs and is subject to the gift tax, regardless of the beneficiary's residency or citizenship. In other words, the GST tax will only apply to the extent that the transfer is subject to the federal estate or gift tax. For example, if a non-U.S. tax resident gives stock in a U.S. corporation to a grandchild, there is no GST tax because gifts of intangibles are exempt from U.S. gift tax. However, if the same non-U.S. tax resident bequeaths the U.S. stock in his will to a grandchild, then that transfer would be subject to GST tax because the bequest is subject to estate tax under the Internal Revenue Code. If a foreign grantor does establish a trust in the U.S., the grantor must be mindful of the rule against perpetuities, which, in the trust context, prevents people from using trusts to exert control over the ownership of property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Because the rule against perpetuities varies per jurisdiction, the Family Trust should be drafted in such a way to allow it to move among jurisdictions to ensure that the family's long-term goals and objectives are met (see the discussion regarding Decanting below). In summary, the tax advantages of establishing a foreign grantor trust are twofold. During the life of the grantor, the grantor will be subject to U.S. income tax only on certain types of U.S. sourced income. Any distributions of foreign source income from a foreign non-grantor trust to non-U.S. tax residents should generally not subject such beneficiaries to any U.S. income taxes. Following the passing of the grantor, the trust has the potential to be a GST tax-exempt dynasty trust that could live in perpetuity, depending on the jurisdiction in which the trust is settled. Miscellaneous Issues Regarding Foreign Grantor Trusts If any of the family members were to become U.S. tax residents, such beneficiaries could become subject to an unfavorable regime known as the "throwback rules." Accordingly, the trust should be drafted to allow for flexibility to transfer some or all of the assets to another trust or to change the jurisdiction of the trust itself. Additionally, because there is no private or public register of beneficial owners for trusts in the U.S., the Family Trust can be an effective means of achieving privacy and confidentiality. Notwithstanding, it is possible that the beneficial ownership of any financial assets owned by the Family Trust directly or indirectly may be reportable under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). If any beneficiary becomes a U.S. tax resident in the future, the beneficial ownership of such financial assets could in the future become reportable under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

PFTC STRUCTURE A PFTC is an attractive option when one or more closely held businesses are owned by one or more trusts for the benefit of family members because it permits the ownership interests of the closely held businesses to be managed by multiple family members and advisors chosen by the family without involving public financial institutions or unrelated individuals. PFTCs are often created when a family needs an independent trustee, but does not believe that an individual or public trust company is the best fit for their specific circumstances. Two key benefits of a PFTC structure that are appealing to the grantor and his or her family are the PFTC's perpetual life and its flexibility. Additionally, the grantor's desire to have family members act as stewards for the family businesses and assets can be achieved by customizing roles and responsibilities in the PFTC. PFTC Legal and Ownership Structure In the United States, a PFTC can either be regulated or unregulated. Regulated PFTCs are established under a state charter and operate pursuant to the state's regulatory requirements. Although unregulated trust companies do not need to operate within a state's regulatory framework, they are subject to risks associated with operating as a fiduciary without regulatory oversight. A regulated trust company tends to provide additional flexibility in dealing with multijurisdictional issues, while also providing an additional degree of legitimacy. Generally, PFTCs do not have many compliance requirements other than annual renewals of its license and meeting the qualification requirements under local laws (e.g., appointing directors or managers with local regulators, providing reports that certify bond and insurance requirements, etc.). If owned by an individual, a succession plan must be developed for the PFTC to transfer ownership interests upon the individual's passing. Alternatively, a special purpose trust, which can exist in perpetuity, can own a PFTC and thereby eliminate succession problems. The role of the special purpose trust would be limited to owning the shares of the PFTC and appointing the PFTC's directors. A U.S. professional trust company generally serves as the trustee of the special purpose trust under the oversight of a trust protector or trust enforcer. The trust protector or enforcer can be a family member, a committee of family members or a trusted advisor that can remove the trustee and appoint a new trustee. PFTC Governance The articles of organization and bylaws will be required to provide for a board of directors for the PFTC. The board of directors may be established to handle daily management and administration of the PFTC and the underlying trust assets (if desired). The PFTC governing documents can also establish different organizational committees to form an efficient governance structure within the PFTC. For example, the PFTC can create a Distribution Committee to determine when distributions from the trust(s) to beneficiaries are appropriate while also determining the amount of such distributions, an Investment Committee to manage how the underlying assets of the trust(s) are invested and coordinate the voting of the family's shares in family business holding companies, and an Amendment Committee to determine whether any changes should be made to the composition of the other committees or to the PFTC structure. Although the members appointed to the Amendment Committee are generally independent advisors in order to provide a degree of independence between the family and the trust assets, family members may serve on each of the above committees, provided that the tax law does not require otherwise. Apart from these governance roles, the PFTC can hire a professional trust company, as an agent, to handle back office trust administration.

DECANTING The Family Trust should be drafted to be as flexible as possible in order to best facilitate the goals of the family. The process of decanting affords a high degree of flexibility by giving the trustee the power to transfer assets from one trust to a subsequent trust, which generally contains more desirable provisions to achieve an intended goal or purpose. Circumstances where decanting may be appealing could be when there is a family disagreement with respect to the management of a specific business or asset, or a situation where the PFTC is comfortable transferring funds to a trust for the benefit of a family member who wants to grow a new business. The power to decant also provides family members with flexibility as to their choice of tax residency. For instance, if a beneficiary were to decide to become a U.S. person, the contemplated Family Trust may not be the ideal structure for them to receive distributions as a beneficiary. Through the decanting process, such beneficiary's share of the Family Trust assets could be decanted to a new trust (with the PFTC as trustee) that would make distributions more tax efficient. A trustee's ability to decant a trust's assets to a new trust generally depends on the trustee's powers under the trust instrument and local law. U.S. jurisdictions that permit trust decanting generally allow such trust-to-trust transfer without gift tax consequences as long as the trustee has discretionary distribution powers that can be exercised in favor of the trust's beneficiaries. The Family Trust would initially be drafted to provide for the trustee's ability to decant the trust assets to another trust in the future, including one governed by the laws of another jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION As discussed throughout this article, establishing a foreign grantor trust and PFTC structure, while considering the implementation of other family governance mechanisms, may be a suitable strategy to accomplish the grantor's goals of family harmony and sustainable stewardship of the family's wealth for multiple generations.

____________________________________ 1

Generally, non-U.S. tax residents are only subject to U.S. tax on any income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (ECI) and U.S. source fixed or determinable, annual or periodical gains, profits or income, which includes certain types of passive income, such as interest, dividends, rents and royalties (FDAP).

中国家庭的财富传承规划原文作者: Christopher Boyett、Nichole Scott 及 Seth Entin 如果没有适当的规划，许多高净值的中国家庭可能更不易在家族世代中保持财富和家庭和谐。为了确保适当的规划，本文讨论了如何为信托授予人及其家庭提供开发符合其需要的家庭财富管理结构的工具。

家庭信托外国授予人的信托的特点和优势信托是家庭用来维持财富和提供财务治理的最有效和最有效率的结构之一。具体来说，信托可以被设立来拥有家族资产，包括家族企业和控股公司（家族信托）。通过将家族企业中持有的权益和家族其他资产转移给家族信托，家族信托可以作为税收规划和继承规划的工具，同时也为防止第三方债权人的债权请求提供了保密和资产保护。家庭信托既可以受美国国内法管辖，也可以受海外司法管辖区的法律管辖。适当管辖权的确定将取决于家庭的目标和指定受托人的权限。其他考虑因素将包括哪个司法管辖区提供最佳的税务规划，以及为家庭提供充分的资产保护。此外，如果家庭决定成立私人家庭信托公司（PFTC），则需要考虑不同司法管辖区的 PFTC 立法。如果 1）美国境内的法院有能力对信托的管理进行主要监督（即“法院测试”），及 2）美国的人士有权控制信托的所有实质性决定，包括撤换和替换受托人的权力、指示投资、修改或撤销信托等（“控制测试”），则该信托为一“国内信托”（又称美国信托）。如果不满足上述任何一项要求，则该信托为美国联邦税务目的的“外国信托”。为设立外国信托，可故意使该信托不符合上述条件之一。一旦确定一个信托应为“国内信托”还是“外国信托”，下一步就是确定该信托应为“授予人信托”还是“非授予人信托”。将家庭信托规划为外国授予人信托通常是有利的。如果授予人是非美国税务居民，且信托公司没有赚取任何使此类个人需承担美国税务责任的收入，则预期的外国授予人信托结构不应承担美国税务责任。1 具体而言，有两种方法可确保家庭信托被归类为美国联邦税务目的的外国授予人信托。取得外国授予人信托地位的第一种方法是，给予信托的授予人在未经任何其他人的批准或同意，或未经服从于授予人的相关方或从属方的同意的情况下，保有重新获得信托资产的权利。取得“授予人信托”地位的第二种办法是，在授予人在世期间，将家庭信托的受益人限于授予人及其配偶。而在授予人过世时，家庭信托将成为以家庭成员为受益人的非授予人信托。作为外国非授予人信托，家庭信托应仅对某些类型的美国来源收入被课征美国所得税，类似于对非美国税务居民个人的课税；外国非授予人信托向非美国税务居民分配的外国来源收入一般不应向此类受益人课征任何美国所得税。在授予人过世后，家庭信托将成为外国非授予人信托，且只有在获得将使其承担美国纳税义务的美国来源收入时，才需申报美国所得税。美国的财富转移税制包括三个主要的税收制度：1）赠与税，2）遗产税和 3）隔代转移税。当它们适用时，这些税种对财富转移进行征税。赠与税是对个人以赠与方式将财产转让给他人的一种税收；不论赠与人是否意图将财产转让作为赠与都适用该税。遗产税是对人过世后转让财产的权利征收的税。隔代移转税是指通过赠与或继承方式将财产转让给比捐赠人至少年轻 37 岁半的受益人时产生的税收。

对于外国授予人信托，隔代移转税仅适用于非美国税务居民在以下时间所做的转让：1）过世时，如果转让财产位于美国且须缴纳遗产税；及 2）在世时，如转让财产位于美国且须缴纳赠与税，无论受益人的居民或公民身份。换言之，隔代移转税只适用于转让须缴纳联邦遗产税或赠与税的情况。例如，如果非美国税务居民将美国公司的股票赠与孙子女，则不征收隔代移转税，因为无形资产的赠与免征美国赠与税。但是，如果同一位非美国税务居民将遗嘱中的美国股票遗赠给孙子女，那么该项转让将课征隔代移转税，因为根据《国内税收法》，遗赠须缴纳遗产税。如果外国授予人确实在美国建立了信托，授予人必须注意防止永续存在的规则，该规则在信托的情况下，防止人们使用信托对财产所有权行使控制权的时间超过了文书订立时居住的人的寿命。由于防止永续存在的规则因每个法域而异，家庭信托的起草方式应允许其在各法域之间进行选择，以确保家庭的长期目标和目的得到满足（见下文关于撤销的讨论）。总之，设立外国授予人信托的税收优势是双重的。在授予人生前，授予人仅对某些类型的美国来源收入被课征美国所得税。外国非授予人信托向非美国税务居民分配的外国来源收入一般不应向此类受益人征收任何美国所得税。在授予人身后，该信托有可能成为一个免税的世代信托，根据信托设立的司法管辖区规定，该信托可以永久存续。

关于外国授予人信托的其他问题如果任何一个家庭成员成为美国的税务居民，这些受益人可能会受到一个被称为“返还规则”的不利制度的影响。因此，信托应被以允许灵活地将部分或全部资产转让给另一个信托或改变信托本身的管辖权的方式拟定。此外，由于美国没有信托受益所有人的私人或公共登记，家庭信托可以成为实现隐私和保密的有效手段。尽管如此，家族信托公司直接或间接拥有的任何金融资产的实益所有权仍有可能根据共同报告准则（CRS）进行报告。如果任何受益人在未来成为美国税务居民，则此类金融资产的受益人所有权可能在未来根据《外国账户税务合规法》（FATCA）进行申报。

PFTC 结构当一个或多个私人持有的企业为家庭成员的利益被一个或多个信托公司所拥有时，PFTC 是一个有吸引力的选择，因为它允许由家庭选择的多个家庭成员和顾问管理私人持有的企业的所有权权益，而不涉及公共金融机构或无关的个人。PFTC 通常是在一个家庭需要一个独立的受托人时创建的，但并不认为个人或公共信托公司最适合他们的具体情况。PFTC 结构对 PFTC 和他或她的家庭有吸引力的的两个主要好处是 PFTC 的永久性和它的灵活性。此外，授予人希望让家庭成员担任家族企业和资产的管理人，可以通过在 PFTC 中定制角色和职责来实现。 PFTC 法律和所有权结构在美国，PFTC 既可以受监管，也可以不受监管。受监管的 PFTC 是根据州特许法律成立的，并按照州的监管要求运作。尽管不受监管的信托公司不需要在一个国家的监管框架内运作，但它们在没有监管监督的情况下作为受托人运作，会面临相关风险。受监管的信托公司倾向于在处理多管辖权问题时提供额外的灵活性，同时也提供额外程度的合法性。

一般来说，PFTC 除了每年更新其许可证和满足当地法律规定的资格要求外（例如，任命当地监管机构的董事或经理，提供证明债券和保险要求的报告等），没有很多合规要求。如果所有权属于个人，则必须制定一项继承计划，以便 PFTC 在个人过世时转让所有权权益。或者，设立可以永久存在的特殊目的信托可以拥有 PFTC，从而消除继承问题。特别目的信托的作用将限于拥有 PFTC 的股份和任命 PFTC 的董事。美国专业信托公司通常在信托保护人或信托执行人的监督下担任特殊目的信托的受托人。信托保护人或执行人可以是家庭成员、家庭成员委员会或可解除受托人职务并任命新受托人的受到信任的顾问。 PFTC 治理组织章程和条款将要求为 PFTC 设立董事会。董事会可为负责 PFTC 及相关信托资产（如有需要）的日常管理而设立。PFTC 管理文件还可以建立不同的组织委员会，在 PFTC 内形成有效的治理结构。例如，PFTC 可以设立一个分配委员会，以决定何时从信托基金向受益人进行分配是适当的，同时还可以确定此类分配的金额、一负责管理信托基础资产的投资方式的投资委员会，并协调家族在家族企业控股公司的股份投票、一负责确定是否应对其他委员会的组成或 PFTC 结构进行任何更改的修正委员会，。虽然被任命为修正委员会成员的一般是独立顾问，以便在家庭和信托资产之间提供一定程度的独立性，但只要税法没有其他不同的规定，家庭成员可以在上述委员会中任职。除了这些治理角色之外，PFTC 还可以聘请一家专业的信托公司作为代理来处理后台的信托管理。

转换信托权家庭信托应被起草为尽可能灵活，以最大程度地促进家庭的目标。转换信托的过程提供了高度的灵活性，通过赋予受托人将资产从一个信托转移到随后的信托的权力，其通常包含更为理想的条款来实现预期的目标或目的。当家庭对某一特定业务或资产的管理存在分歧时，或者当 PFTC 愿意将资金转移到信托基金中，为希望发展新业务的家庭成员的利益时，这种情况下，转换信托可能是有吸引力的。转换信托权也为家庭成员提供了灵活的税收居住地选择。例如，如果受益人决定成为美国人，预期的家庭信托可能不是他们作为受益人接受分配的理想结构。通过信托转换过程，这些受益人在家庭信托资产中的份额可以转移到一个新的信托公司（以 PFTC 为受托人），这将提高分配的税收效率。受托人将信托资产移转到新的信托的能力通常取决于受托人在信托文书和当地法律下的权力。允许信托转换的美国司法管辖区通常允许此类信托在不产生赠与税后果的情况下进行信托转换，只要受托人拥有可为信托受益人行使的酌情分配权。家庭信托在最初起草时应规定受托人在未来有能力将信托资产转移给另一个信托公司，包括受另一个司法管辖区法律管辖的信托公司。

结论正如本文所讨论的，在考虑实施其他家庭治理机制的同时，建立外国授予人信托和 PFTC 结构，可能是实现授予人家庭和睦和可持续管理家庭财富的目标的一个适当策略。

____________________________________ 一般而言，非美国税务居民仅对与美国贸易或业务（ECI）和美国固定或可确定来源、年度或定期收益、利润或收入有效相关的任何收入（包括某些类型的被动收入，如利息、股息、租金和特许权使用费（FDAP））征收美国税。 1

Linda Auerbach Allderdice is a litigation attorney and heads the firm's Labor, Employment and Benefits Practice Group in California. She is well versed in handling complex litigation in all aspects of labor and employment law, including wage and hour class action and Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) litigation, discrimination, harassment and whistleblower claims, as well as trade secret litigation. She advises clients on compliance with state and federal labor and employment laws, handles labor and employment due diligence as part of merger and acquisition (M&A) deal teams, conducts internal investigations concerning workplace compliance issues and harassment complaints, and represents companies in matters involving labor relations for management. Christopher W. Boyett co-chairs Holland & Knight's National Private Wealth practice. Mr. Boyett advises domestic and international wealthy families throughout Florida on sophisticated estate planning strategies and options and counsels family businesses on succession planning and tax planning. Additionally, he advises both institutional and individual clients on estate and trust administration issues. Seth J. Entin is a tax attorney who focuses his practice on international taxation. Mr. Entin was named Miami Lawyer of the Year in Tax Law for 2016 by The Best Lawyers in America guide. Mr. Entin has experience handling international taxation of high-net-worth individuals, international corporate taxation, Internal Revenue Service international tax audits and litigation, and offshore voluntary disclosures. Robert P. Frank is a Philadelphia environmental and real estate attorney who has extensive transactional and advisory experience in federal and state issues raised by contaminated properties and by deals involving the development, construction, operation and sale of wind energy plants, solar power plants, natural gas-fired plants and transmission lines. Mr. Frank regularly counsels clients performing due diligence on a variety of environmental and energy issues, and has represented real estate developers, power plant developers, the lenders to these developers, companies generating and handling pharmaceutical waste, and various private equity investors evaluating the environmental liabilities of their targets.

John H. Haney represents employers in a variety of matters involving wage and hour compliance, wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, unfair labor practices, leave and reasonable accommodation laws, workers' compensation, employee/independent contractor classification, exempt/nonexempt employee classification, trade secret misappropriation, government agency investigations, internal investigations, class actions, representative actions, and occupational safety and health regulations. Adolfo E. Jiménez is a Miami litigation attorney whose practice focuses on international disputes, and he leads the firm's International Arbitration and Litigation Team. Mr. Jiménez represents clients in a variety of industries, including media, energy, maritime, infrastructure, transportation, hospitality, mining, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and technology. In addition to his civil litigation practice, Mr. Jiménez has extensive experience managing arbitrations in English and Spanish before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), American Arbitration Association (AAA), China International Trade and Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and cases administered under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules. Katharine Menéndez de la Cuesta is a litigation lawyer who handles international disputes. Clients rely on her experience to represent them in international arbitration proceedings in English and Spanish, and in litigations before U.S. federal and state courts in New York and Florida. Ms. Menéndez has handled international arbitrations applying the laws of New York, Florida, Spain, France, U.K., Namibia, Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Guatemala, among other jurisdictions, and administered by the main arbitral institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Nichole D. Scott is a private wealth services attorney who develops and implements various structures for the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next and works with families to ensure that their wealth is preserved for as long as possible. Ms. Scott is experienced in drafting complex trusts, wills and other estate planning instruments as well as in administering trusts and estates both during the life of the settlor and upon the death of the settlor/decedent. Further, Ms. Scott is experienced in protecting the rights of settlors and beneficiaries through trust and estate litigation. Samuel J. Stone represents employers of all sizes in labor, employment, and complex civil and criminal government investigative matters before state and federal courts, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB), among others.

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系

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

Sophie Jin | Washington, D.C. +1.202.469.5179 sophie.jin@hklaw.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Leon | Miami +1.305.789.7703 rebecca.leon@hklaw.com

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

Carrie S. Friesen-Meyers | San Francisco +1.415.743.6954 carrie.friesen-meyers@hklaw.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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