Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: September - October 2019 by Holland & Knight

期刊

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER………………………………………………………………….....3 OPPORTUNITY ZONE INCENTIVES MAY BE ATTRACTIVE FOR FOREIGN INVESTORS…..4 机会区的激励可能吸引外国投资人…………………………………………………………………….10 CORPORATE JET INSURANCE AND LIABILITY ISSUES………………………………………..16 公务飞机保险及责任问题……………………………………………………………………………….21 THE "DO'S AND DON'TS" OF INTERACTING WITH U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT …………….26 与美国执法部门接触时“应该做及不应该做的事”……………………………………………………..29 NEW TREASURY REGULATIONS REVISE TAXATION OF U.S. PERSONS OWNING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ………………………………………………………………………….32 新的财政部规则修改了对持有外国公司的美国人士的课税做法…………………………………….36 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER………………………………………………………………………....40 有关本期刊……………………………………………………………………………………………….40 ABOUT THE AUTHORS……………………………………………………………………………….40 关于本期作者…………………………………………………………………………………………….40

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。

Opportunity Zone Incentives May Be Attractive for Foreign Investors By Kristin A. DeKuiper, Mary Elizabeth Hubner and Sean J. Tevel The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed into law on Dec. 22, 2017, contained new tax incentives (Opportunity Zone Law) for making investments in low-income communities designated as qualified opportunity zones (QOZs). The Opportunity Zone Law is now codified as Sections 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (Code). The first tax incentive available under the Opportunity Zone Law allows investors who sell their appreciated securities or other investment property to defer tax on all or a portion of those capital gains to the extent of amounts invested in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). In addition to deferring capital gains that are reinvested in a QOF, the Opportunity Zone Law would reduce such gain subject to tax for those who hold their investments at least five years and would reduce it further if held for at least seven years. The second tax incentive available under the Opportunity Zone Law would exempt from tax any post-acquisition gains on investments in the QOFs themselves if held at least 10 years. Since its enactment, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has provided guidance on the Opportunity Zone Law in the form of two sets of proposed regulations (collectively, the Proposed Regulations). This article will discuss the basic requirements for eligibility to receive benefits under the Opportunity Zone Law, as clarified and expanded by the Proposed Regulations, as well as certain tax considerations relevant to foreign investors interested in making investments that qualify for tax incentives under the Opportunity Zone Law.

INVESTOR AND INVESTOR BENEFITS Deferral of Capital Gain Under the Opportunity Zone Law, a taxpayer who would recognize capital gain from the sale to, or exchange with, an unrelated person of any property held by the taxpayer may elect to defer recognition of the gain to the extent of the amount invested in a QOF during the 180-day period beginning on the date of the sale or exchange. No election to defer gain can be made 1) after Dec. 31, 2026, or 2) if an election previously made with respect to such sale or exchange is in effect. Special rules for partnerships in the Proposed Regulations allow a partner in a partnership that has not itself elected to defer gain to elect to defer such partner's allocable share of any eligible gain. The electing partner has 180 days from the end of the partnership's tax year to invest. The electing partner may also choose to use the partnership's 180-day period, which would commence on the date of the partnership's sale or exchange. Similar rules apply to other pass-through entities. Special rules for Section 1231 gain (arising from sale of a business asset) in the Proposed Regulations provide that only net 1231 gain for a taxable year may be deferred, such net gain to be determined on the last day of the tax year. Accordingly, a taxpayer with net Section 1231 gain has 180 days from the end of the tax year to invest the net gain. Except for a potential partial exclusion described below, the deferred capital gain (Deferred Capital Gain) is included in the taxpayer's gross income on the earlier of 1) the date on which the QOF investment is sold or exchanged, or 2) Dec. 31, 2026 (Recognition Date). The amount of gain included in gross income on the Recognition Date is equal to the excess of (A) the lesser of 1) the Deferred Capital Gain or 2) the fair market Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

value of the QOF investment over (B) the taxpayer's basis in the QOF investment. Except for the adjustments arising from the step-up in basis after certain holding periods described below, the taxpayer's basis in the QOF investment is generally deemed to be zero. For example, if the Deferred Capital Gain is $100 and the fair market value of the QOF investment declines from $100 to $80 on the Recognition Date, the amount required to be included in income on that date would be the lesser of the two amounts (i.e., $80, not $100). Partial Step-Up in Basis Notwithstanding the zero basis starting point, if the QOF investment is held for at least five years, the basis of such investment is increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of the Deferred Capital Gain. If the QOF investment is held for at least seven years, the basis in the investment is increased by an additional 5 percent of the Deferred Capital Gain. If the investment has not been sold by Dec. 31, 2026, the remaining 85 percent of the Deferred Capital Gain must be recognized (assuming the investment has not declined in value) and, due to the partial step up and gain recognition on the Recognition Date, the basis of the investment is correspondingly increased to 100 percent of the Deferred Capital Gain. Because any Deferred Capital Gain must be recognized on the Recognition Date, which will occur in slightly more than seven years, a taxpayer would need to invest eligible gain in a QOF in 2019 in order to maximize the deferral benefits available under the Opportunity Zone Law. Election to Exclude Gain on Investment Held at Least 10 Years If the QOF investment is held for at least 10 years, a second election may be made to increase the basis of the QOF investment to the fair market value of the investment on the date it is sold or exchanged. This will have the effect of excluding from gross income any gain on the QOF investment in excess of the amount of any Deferred Capital Gain recognized on Dec. 31, 2026. The Proposed Regulations make it clear that a taxpayer can make this election as late as Dec. 31, 2047, even after the QOZ designation has expired in 2028. The Proposed Regulations include a provision that if a QOF's interest in a qualified opportunity zone business (QOZB) is sold, an investor in the QOF may elect to exclude from gross income some or all of the capital gain from disposition of the QOF's interest. Although not as beneficial as the statutory increase of basis to fair market value upon sale of an investor's interest in the QOF, this may facilitate the sale of one asset in a multiasset fund at a time when the other assets are not ready for sale.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOREIGN INVESTORS Under the Foreign Investment in U.S. Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), capital gains earned by nonU.S. tax residents can be subject to U.S. federal income tax if such capital gains are earned from a disposition of U.S. real property. Additionally, certain capital gains earned by non-U.S. income tax residents from the disposition of assets used in a U.S. trade or business (held directly and through interests in partnerships) are also subject to U.S. federal income tax. Both of these types of U.S.-sourced capital gains trigger a withholding tax obligation and an income tax return filing requirement in the United States. Non-U.S. income tax residents can reinvest their U.S. taxable gains into a QOF and benefit from the Opportunity Zone Law. As an investment in a QOF will generally need to be an indirect investment in an active U.S. real estate business or another active U.S. trade or business, the income earned during the term of the investment would typically create a U.S. taxable presence and an income tax return filing requirement for foreign investors in the United States. One additional caveat is that an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or domiciled in the United States is only subject to U.S. federal estate taxation on certain assets situated in the United States (U.S. Situs Assets). U.S. Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Situs Assets include U.S. real property, tangible property physically located in the United States, and stock in U.S. domestic corporations. Presently, the highest marginal U.S. federal estate tax rate is 40 percent. A nonU.S. domiciliary's U.S. taxable estate only is entitled to an estate tax exemption amount applicable against the first $60,000 of U.S. situs assets owned at death, whereas a U.S. domiciliary is allowed a $11.4 million exemption amount. U.S. counsel can assist with the implementation of a structure that mitigates the U.S. federal estate tax exposure for foreign investors looking to invest in QOFs. In order to maximize the tax benefits associated with the Opportunity Zone Law, Chinese investors should ensure that their Chinese counsel and U.S. counsel coordinate their tax planning. For instance, the benefits of the Opportunity Zone Law would be less valuable if there was not a corresponding tax exemption for foreign gains, or tax deferral benefit in China (or jurisdiction of any holding company interposed between the Chinese investor and underlying U.S. investment) because taxes would still need to be paid in the foreign jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, if the Opportunity Zone Law benefits can be paired with an exemption or benefit in China (or the respective holding company jurisdiction), the tax planning can be very helpful for Chinese residents investing in the United States.

WHERE CAN OPPORTUNITY ZONE INVESTMENTS BE MADE? The benefits available to investors under the Opportunity Zone Law are available only for qualifying investments made in QOZs. Pursuant to procedures set forth in the TCJA, all states and U.S. possessions nominated QOZs, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury accepted those nominations. There are more than 8,700 designated QOZs, each of which is in a census tract characterized by a poverty rate in excess of 20 percent or a median family income of less than 80 percent of statewide or metropolitan area family income, as applicable. By legislation passed after the TCJA, all of Puerto Rico's low-income community census tracts were designated as QOZs. The official list of all designated QOZs is available on the website for the U.S. Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which is supporting the IRS with the QOZ nomination and designation process.

FORMATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY FUNDS As noted above, the tax incentives available under the Opportunity Zone Law require investors to invest eligible gain into QOFs, which, in turn, invest in QOZs. Section 1400Z-2(d)(1) of the Code defines a QOF as any investment vehicle organized as a corporation or partnership for the purpose of investing in qualified opportunity zone property (QOZ Property) and that holds at least 90 percent of its assets in QOZ Property (90 Percent Asset Test). A limited liability company taxed as a partnership or corporation also qualifies. Whether a QOF satisfies the 90 Asset Percent Test is determined by averaging the percentage of QOZ Property held by the QOF: 1) on the last day of the first six-month period in the applicable taxable year of the QOF and 2) on the last day of the applicable taxable year of the QOF. The Proposed Regulations allow a QOF to apply the 90 Percent Asset Test without taking into account any investments received in the preceding six months as long as those new assets are being held in cash, cash equivalents or debt instruments with a term of 18 months or less. This provision provides a ramp-up period before the QOF must meet its initial 90 Percent Asset Test. The IRS has issued draft Form 8996, which a QOF will use to self-certify to the IRS that it is a QOF. The QOF is required to file this form with its annual federal income tax return and requires the QOF to report information about its assets. There is no requirement that a QOF be certified or otherwise approved by the IRS or any other governmental entity.

If a QOF fails to meet the 90 Percent Asset Test, the QOF must pay a monthly penalty for each month in which it fails to meet the requirement. The penalty is calculated by multiplying the underpayment rate established under Section 6621(a)(2) of the Code for the applicable month by an amount equal to the excess of 1) 90 percent of the QOF's aggregate assets over 2) the aggregate amount of QOZ Property it holds. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no penalty is to be imposed with respect to any qualification failure if it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause. Neither the statute nor the Proposed Regulations provide guidance about what constitutes "reasonable cause."

QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY ZONE PROPERTY As described in the previous section, a QOF must invest at least 90 percent of its assets in QOZ Property to meet the 90 Percent Asset Test. Section 1400Z-2(d)(2) defines QOZ Property as one of the following: a) qualified opportunity zone stock (QOZ Stock) b) qualified opportunity zone partnership interests (QOZ Partnership Interest), or c) qualified opportunity zone business property (QOZB Property) Based on the foregoing, a QOF may qualify for the benefits available under the Opportunity Zone Law indirectly through its ownership in a subsidiary that qualifies as a QOZB or by directly operating a business that holds QOZB Property.

QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY ZONE STOCK QOZ Stock is stock in a domestic corporation (including a limited liability company taxed as a corporation) acquired after Dec. 31, 2017, at its original issue by the corporation solely in exchange for cash. In addition, the corporation invested in must be, or must be organized to be, a QOZB for substantially all (i.e., 90 percent) of the holding period of the stock

QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY ZONE PARTNERSHIP INTEREST A QOZ Partnership Interest is any capital or profits interest in a domestic partnership (including a limited liability company taxed as a partnership) that is acquired by the QOF after Dec. 31, 2017, from the partnership solely in exchange for cash. In addition, the partnership must be, or must be organized to be, a QOZB and must remain so for substantially all (i.e., 90 percent) of the QOF's holding period in the interest.

QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY ZONE BUSINESS PROPERTY QOZB Property is tangible property used in a trade or business of the QOF if: a) such property was acquired by purchase (as defined in Section 179(d)(2) of the Code) after Dec. 31, 2017, from a person who is not a related person within the meaning of the Opportunity Zone Law (where the related party rules provide that such parties may not have common ownership of greater than 20 percent) b) the original use of such property in the QOZ commences with the QOF (Original Use Test) or the QOF substantially improves the property (Substantial Improvement Test), and c) during substantially all (i.e., 90 percent) of the QOF's holding period for such property, substantially all (i.e., 70 percent) of the use of such property is in a QOZ The Opportunity Zone Law provides that the foregoing rules also apply to a QOZB that holds QOZB Property, which is likely to be the more common scenario. Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

The Proposed Regulations specify that the original use of tangible property in a QOZ is deemed to commence on the date any person first places the property in service in the QOZ for purposes of depreciation or amortization (or first uses it in a manner that would allow depreciation or amortization if that person were the property's owner). By defining Original Use this way, the Proposed Regulations confirm that a QOZB can purchase construction in progress and can be considered the original user of the resulting building as long as the acquisition occurs before the building is completed and placed in service. If the building is an entirely new building, the purchaser would not need to meet the Substantial Improvement Test with respect to the building. If property has been unused or vacant for an uninterrupted period of at least five years, the Proposed Regulations provide that original use in the QOZ commences on the date after that period when any person first so uses or places the property in service in the QOZ. Accordingly, the Substantial Improvement Test would not need to be met by the purchaser of a building that meets the vacancy test. Used tangible property that is movable satisfies the Original Use Test if the property has not been previously so used or placed in service in the QOZ. If the tangible property has been used or placed in service in the QOZ before it is acquired by purchase, it must be substantially improved in accordance with the Substantial Improvement Test. Under the Substantial Improvement Test, a QOZB is deemed to have substantially improved tangible property only if, during any 30month period beginning after the date of acquisition of such property, additions to the basis of the property in the hands of the QOZB exceed an amount equal to the adjusted basis of such property at the beginning of such 30-month period in the hands of the QOZB. The Proposed Regulations provide that the determination of whether the Substantial Improvement Test is satisfied for tangible property that is purchased is made on an asset-by-asset basis rather than an aggregate basis. The Proposed Regulations create an exception to the Substantial Improvement Test for land and improvements on land. The Proposed Regulations (together with the companion Revenue Ruling 2018-29) provide that if a QOZB acquires a piece of land with a building on it, the Substantial Improvement Test is measured against the basis of the building alone and does not include the basis of land on which it sits. Moreover, vacant land acquired by a QOZB does not have to be substantially improved in order to be treated as QOZB Property, provided that the unimproved land is used in the QOZB's active trade or business. The foregoing rule will not apply, however, if the land is unimproved or minimally improved and the QOZB purchases the land with an expectation, an intention or a view not to improve the land by more than an insubstantial amount within 30 months after the date of purchase. This last rule is likely intended to prevent a QOZB from acquiring land solely to resell it at a later date (sometimes referred to as land banking).

QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY ZONE BUSINESS A QOZB is a trade or business that satisfies the following requirements: a) substantially all (i.e., 70 percent) of the tangible property owned or leased by the taxpayer is QOZB Property (in accordance with the rules described above) b) at least 50 percent of its gross income is derived from the active conduct of such trade or business in a QOZ c) a substantial portion (i.e., 40 percent) of the intangible property of the trade or business is used in the active conduct of such business within a QOZ d) less than 5 percent of the average of the aggregate unadjusted bases of such entity's property is attributable to nonqualified financial property (which is defined by reference to Section 1397C(e) of the Code,1 e) such entity's business is not a private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, hot tub facility, suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for gambling, or any store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises. Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

LEASING RULES The Proposed Regulations include several helpful rules describing how leases of property in a QOZ can comply with the Opportunity Zone Law. These rules are particularly useful because the Opportunity Zone Law contains only one reference to leases and there was previously confusion about how the rules would apply to leased property. The Proposed Regulations clarified that a QOZB may lease property (including from a related party), provided that the lease: a) is entered into after Dec. 31, 2017, and b) is on arm's length, market terms in the locale that includes the QOZ (as determined in accordance with Section 482 of the Code and related regulations). If a QOZB leases the property from a related party, the Proposed Regulations provide that two additional rules apply: 1) the lessee cannot make any prepayment of rent to the lessor for a period exceeding 12 months, and 2) if the original use of leased personal property does not commence with the lessee, such leased personal property will not be treated as QOZB Property unless the lessee becomes the owner of tangible property that is QOZB Property and that has a value not less than the value of the leased personal property. Under this rule, there must be substantial overlap between the zone in which the property so acquired is used and the zone in which the lessee uses the leased property. In addition, the Proposed Regulations include the following important rules related to leases: a) the original use of leased property for purposes of the Original Use Test commences on the date the property is first placed in service for depreciation purposes (or first used in a manner that would allow depreciation if the person were the property's owner) b) leased property does not need to be substantially improved in accordance with the Substantial Improvement Test even if it has been previously placed in service by a prior owner c) an antiabuse rule provides that if there was "a plan, intent, or expectation" at the time the lease was entered into for the real property to be purchased at less than the fair market value of the property determined at the time of purchase, without regard to any prior lease payments, the leased property does not qualify as QOZB Property The Proposed Regulations further clarify that the ownership and operation (including leasing) of real property does constitute the active conduct of a trade or business. However, merely entering into a triple net lease with respect to real property owned by a taxpayer is not the active conduct of a trade or business by such taxpayer.

CONCLUSION The Opportunity Zone Incentive may be attractive to non-U.S. income tax resident taxpayers who have U.S. source capital gain to invest and who can identify a qualifying project in a QOZ with substantial appreciation potential. Non-U.S. income tax resident taxpayers will need to be aware of how the implications of their tax status may affect gain deferral and the implications of an investment in a qualifying QOZ project. Tax planning for these investors should be closely coordinated with U.S. tax counsel and tax counsel in the investor's home jurisdiction.

"Nonqualified financial property" means debt, stock, partnership interests, options, futures contracts, forward contracts, warrants, notional principal contracts, annuities and other similar property specified in regulations other than 1) reasonable amounts of working capital held in cash, cash equivalents or debt instruments with a term of 18 months or less, or 2) accounts or notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of trade or business either for services rendered or from the sale of stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business). Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

机会区的激励可能吸引外国投资人原文作者：Kristin A. DeKuiper, Mary Elizabeth Hubner 及 Sean J. Tevel

2017 年 12 月 22 日签署成为法律的减税和就业法（TCJA）包含就对被指定为合格的机会区的低收入社区进行投资（QOZ）适用新的税收激励的规定（机会区法）。机会区法现在被编为经修订的美国联邦税法的第 1400Z-1 和 1400Z-2 条（美国联邦税法）。机会区法提供的第一个税收激励允许投资人出售其增值的证券或其他投资财产而就以该资本收益的全部或一部投资于合格的机会基金（QOF）的部分递延资本收益所得税的缴纳。除了对再投资于 QOF 的部分给与资本收益所得税的递延之外，如持有该等投资至少五年，机会区法将降低这种应纳税的资本收益、而如持有该等投资至少七年，将进一步降低这种应纳税的资本收益。机会区法提供的第二种税收激励则可以对投资于 QOF 本身并持有至少十年的投资所产生的任何收购后收益进行税务免除。自颁布以来，美国国税局（IRS）已以拟议规则对机会区法的适用给与指示（合称拟议规则）。在这篇文章中，我们将讨论拟议规则中所澄清及展开的关于如何符合及获得机会区法的税收优惠的基本要求资格、以及有关外国投资人有兴趣进行可以符合机会区法下的税收优惠的投资所应考量到的某些税务问题。

投资人和投资人优惠资本收益递延根据机会区法，纳税人对纳税人将其持有的任何财产出售给无关的人士或与其进行交换所产生的资本收益，可以在销售或交换日期开始后的 180 天内选择将该资本收益投资于 QOF 的部分的认列进行递延。。但（1 ）在 2026 年 12 月 31 日之后、或（2）如果先前就此类出售或交换已经进行选择过，则不得进行该资本收益递延的选择。拟议规则中就合伙的特别规定允许合伙企业本身没有进行所得递延选择的合伙人就其在该合伙企业的可以分配到的任何合格收益选择进行递延。进行选择的合伙人可以在合伙企业的纳税年度结束起 180 天内进行投资。进行选择的合伙人也可以选择使用从合伙企业的销售或交换日期开始起算的合伙企业的 180 天期限。类似的规则适用于其他穿透的实体。拟议规则中就第 1231 条收益（因出售商业资产而产生的收益）的特别规定规定只能递延税务年度中产生的 1231 条净收益、而该净收益将在纳税年度的最后一天确定。因此，具有 1231 净收益的纳税人可在纳税年度结束后的 180 天内对该净收益进行投资。除下文所述的潜在部分排除外，递延资本收益（递延资本收益）可在下列两个日期的较早日期内包含于纳税人的总收入中：1）QOF 投资的出售或交换日期，或 2）2026 年 12 月 31 日（“认列日期”）。认列日期的总收入中包含的收益金额等于（A）（即（1）递延资本收益中的或（2）QOF 投资的公平市场价值两者之间较小者）超过（B）(即纳税人在 QOF 投资的税基)的部分。除了在下文所述在某些持有期后对税基进行调升之外，纳税人在 QOF 投资的税基础通常被视为零。例如，如果递延资本收益为 100 美元且 QOF 投资的公 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

平市场价值在认列日期从 100 美元降至 80 美元，则该日期所需包含于收入的金额将是两个金额中的较小者（即，80 美元，而不是 100 美元）。

税基的部分提高尽管一开始税基视为零，如果 QOF 投资至少持有五年，则此类投资的税基将以相当于递延资本收益的 10％的金额提高。如果 QOF 投资至少持有七年，则投资的税基将额外以相当于递延资本收益的 5％的金额提高。如果投资在 2026 年 12 月 31 日之前尚未出售，剩余 85％的递延资本收益必须必须被认列（假设投资价值没有下降），并且由于部分税基提高并在认列日期认列收益，投资的税基应相应增加至递延资本收益的 100％。由于任何递延资本收益必须在认列日期认列，该日期将在七年后的稍晚时间发生，纳税人需要在 2019 年将符合条件的收益投资于 QOF，以便最大限度地享受机会区法所提供得税务递延得优惠。

选择排除至少持有十年的投资所产生的收益如果 QOF 投资至少持有 10 年，则可以进行第二次选择，以将 QOF 投资的税基提高至投资于出售或交换之日的公平市场价值。这将产生将 QOF 投资的收益超出 2026 年 12 月 31 日确认的任何递延资本收益的部分从总收入中扣除的效果。拟议规则明确规定纳税人可最晚在 2047 年 12 月底进行此次选择（即使 QOZ 的指定将于 2028 年到期）。拟议规则包括一项规定如果出售 QOF 在合格机会区业务（QOZB）的权益，则 QOF 的投资人可选择将其处分 QOF 的利益从总收入中排除部分或全部资本收益。虽然不如法规所规定在投资人出售其在 QOF 的利益可将税基依法规提高至公平市场价值那么有利，但这可能有助于在其他资产尚未准备出售时在多资产基金中出售一项资产。

外国投资者的考虑因素根据 1980 年外国投资美国房地产税务法案（FIRPTA），非美国税收居民所获得的资本收益可能需要缴纳美国联邦所得税，如果这些资本收益来自美国不动产的处分的话。此外，非美国所得税居民从（直接持有或通过合伙企业的利益间接持有的）用于美国贸易或商业的资产的处分获得的某些资本收益也须缴纳美国联邦所得税。这两种类型的美国来源资本收益都会产生美国的预扣税义务和所得税申报要求。非美国所得税居民可以将其美国应税收益再投资到一个 QOF，并受益于机会区法。由于对 QOF 的投资通常需要间接投资于积极的美国房地产业务或其他积极的美国贸易或业务，因此在投资期间赚取的收入对在美国进行投资的外国投资人通常会产生为税务目的视为存在于美国和所得税申报要求。另外一个需提请注意的是，非美国公民或非居住在美国的个人仅会被对位于美国的某些资产（位于美国的资产）征收美国联邦遗产税。位于美国的资产包括美国不动产，实际位于美国的有形财产以及美国国内公司的股票。目前，最高边际美国联邦遗产税税率为 40％。住所不在美国的人对应税遗产仅有权获得适用于死亡时拥有的美国第一个 60,000 美元资产的遗产税免税金额，而住所在美国的人可获得 1140 万美元的免税金额。美国律师可以协助实施以减少美国联邦遗产税对可能投资于 QOF 的外国投资者的风险的架构。为了最大限度地提高与机会区法相关的税收优惠，中国投资者应确保其中国律师和美国律师就税务规划进行协调。例如，如果中国（或中国投资人与其在美国投资之间的任何控股公司的司法管辖区）没有相应的的外国收益 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

免税或税收递延利益，机会区法的好处就会降低。因为仍需要在外国司法管辖区缴纳税款。尽管如此，如果机会区法的优惠可以与中国（或相应的控股公司管辖区）的豁免或优惠搭配，那么税收规划将非常有利于于在美国投资的中国居民。

哪里可以进行机会区投资？机会区法提供给投资人的优惠仅适用于在 QOZ 中进行的合格投资。根据 TCJA中规定的程序，美国各州及各属地都可提名 QOZ ，而美国财政部接受这些提名。目前有超过 8,700 个指定的 QOZ ，每个都位于贫困率超过 20％或家庭收入中位数低于全州或大都市地区家庭收入的 80％在（如适用）人口普查区。通过在 TCJA 之后通过的立法，波多黎各所有低收入社区人口普查区被指定为 QOZ 。所有指定 QOZ 的官方列表（official list of all designated QOZs）可以在美国社区发展金融机构基金所设的网站上找到（美国社区发展金融机构基金系支持美国国税局进行 QOZ 提名和指定流程的机构）。

合格机会基金的形成和认证如上所述，机会区法规定的税收优惠政策要求投资者将合格收益投资于 QOF，而 QOF 则投资于 QOZ 。美国联邦税法第 1400Z-2(d)(1)条将 QOF 定义为任何为投资于合格的机会区财产（QOZ 财产）的以公司或合伙组织方式设立、而其至少持有其在 QOZ 财产中的资产的百分之九十的的投资实体（ 90％的资产测试）。与合伙企业或一般公司征税方式相同的有限责任公司（LLC）也符合资格。而 QOF 是否符合 90％的资产测试是按 QOF在下列期间持有 QOZ财产的比率来决定：（i）在QOF适用的税务年度的第一个6个月期间的最后一天；及（ii）QOF 的适用的纳税年度的最后一天。该拟议规则允许 QOF适用90％的资产测试，而无需考量到在前六个月接收到的任何投资，只要这些新资产系以现金，等同现金方式或债务工具持有 18 个月或更短的时间。该规定提供了在 QOF 必须达到其最初的 90％资产测试之前的提升期。美国国税局已核发 8996表格稿， QOF 将在表中向美国国税局自我认证其为一 QOF。QOF 需要在提交其年度联邦所得税申报表时提交此表格、并要求 QOF 报告其资产信息。而没有存在 QOF需由美国国税局或任何其他政府实体认证或以其他方式批准的要求。如果 QOF 未能达到 90％的资产测试，则 QOF 必须对每个不符合要求的月份支付不符合要求的每月罚款。罚款金额根据美国联邦税法第 6621(a)(2)条中建立的短付率与以下金额相乘算出：即（1）QOF 的总资产的 90％超过（2）它拥有的 QOZ 财产的总额的金额。尽管有上述规定，如果证明未能符合是因合理的原因所致，则不会对任何未能合格加以罚款。美国联邦税法和拟议规则均未就什么将构成“合理原因”提供指示。

合格的机会区域财产如上一节所述，QOF 必须将其至少 90 ％的资产投资于 QOZ 财产以满足 90％的资产测试。第 1400Z-2(d)(2)条将 QOZ 财产定义为以下之一：

a）合格的机会区股票（QOZ 股票） b）合格的机会区合伙权益（QOZ 合伙利益），或 c）合格的机会区商业财产（QOZB 财产）

根据上述规定，QOF 可通过其拥有的符合 QOZB 资格的子公司中或直接经营持有 QOZB 财产的事业间接获得机会区法规定的优惠。

合格的机会区域股票 QOZ 股票是于 2017 年 12 月 31 日后以完全以现金方式认购的原始发行的国内企业（包括课税方式与一般公司相同的有限责任公司）股票。此外，持有该股票的大部分（即 90 ％）期间，其所投资的公司必须或者必须以 QOZB组成。

合格的机会区合伙权益 QOZ 合伙权益是指在 2017 年 12 月 31 日之后由 QOF完全以现金方式从合伙企业取得的国内合伙企业（包括课税方式与合伙企业相同的有限责任公司）的任何资本或利润权益。此外，合伙企业必须或必须被组织为 QOZB，且在 QOF 持有该权益的大部分（即 90 ％）期间保持如此。

合格机会区商业地产 QOZB 财产是 QOF 的贸易或业务中使用的有形财产，如：

a）这些财产的购买（如美国联邦税法第 179(d)(2)所定义）是在 2017 年 12 月 31 日之后从不是机会区法所定义的相关人士处所购得（其中相关人士的规则规定，这些人不得存在超过 20 ％的共同持有权） b）在 QOF 原始使用此类财产于 QOZ （原始使用测试）或 QOF 重大改善财产（重大改善测试） c）QOF 持有在此类财产的基本上全部分期间（即 90 ％），此类财产的使用基本上所有（即 70 ％）时间都用于 QOZ 中机会区法律规定上述规则也适用于持有 QOZB 财产的 QOZB ，而这可能是更常见的情况。拟议规则具体规定，在 QOZ 上进行有形财产的原始使用被视为自任何人为 QOZ 折旧或摊销的目的第一次将该财产用于 QOZ 上（或如同该人是该财产的所有者，以允许折旧或摊销的方式第一次使用）的日期开始起算。通过将原始使用这样定义，拟议规则确认一个 QOZB 可以购买在建工程，且只要收购发生于建设完成及付诸使用之前可以被认为是所产生的建筑的原有用户。如果建筑物是一座全新的建筑物，购买者将无需满足建筑物的重大改善测试。如果财产未经使用或空置至少 5 年的不间断时间，则拟议规则规定，QOZ 的原始使用在该人员首次在 QOZ上使用财产或将其投入使用的日期开始。因此，满足空缺测试的建筑物的购买者不需要满足重大改善测试。如果该物业之前未在 QOZ 中如此使用或投入使用，则使用过的可移动的有形财产可满足原始使用测试。如果有形财在 QOZ 被购买取得前已被使用或已被置于 QOZ 上使用，它必须依重大改善测试的规定被重大改善过。根据重大改善测试，只有在收购此类财产之日起的任何 30 个月期间，QOZB 手中的财产税基的增加超过了 QOZB 手中 30 个月期间开始时该财产的调整后的税基的金额， QOZB才会被视为具有重大改善的有形财产。拟议规则规定，确定购买的有形财产是否满足重大改善测试是根据逐一资产的税基上（而非总体税基上）所作出的。

提议规则为土地和土地改良重大性改善试验制定了一个例外。提议规则（与相配合的 2018-29号税务决定）规定，如果一个 QOZB 获取上有一个建筑的一块土地，重大改善测试是单独根据建筑物的税基测试，而不包括它所在的土地的税基。此外，由 QOZB 购得的闲置土地不需被重大改善而得以被视为 QOZB 财产，前提是未开发土地使用于 QOZB 的积极贸易或商业活动。但是，如果土地没有得到改善或最低限度的改善，并且 QOZB 预期及意图在购买后 30 个月内不对土地进行不算重大金额的改善，则上述规则将不适用。这最后的规定可能是为了防止 QOZB 在收购土地后仅仅为了在其后将其转售（有时称为土地储备）。

合格的机会区业务 QOZB 是满足以下要求的贸易或业务：

a) b) c) d)

纳税人显著全部（即 70％）拥有或租用的有形财产为 QOZB 财产（按照上述规则）其总收入的至少 50％来自 QOZ 中此类贸易或业务的积极行为交易或业务无形财产的显著部分（即 40％）用于在 QOZ 内展此类业务的积极行为该实体的财产的未经调整税基的平均值不到 5％归属于不合格的金融财产（参照美国联邦税法第 1397C（e）条定义）， 1 e) 该实体的业务不是私人或商业高尔夫球场、乡村俱乐部、按摩院，热水浴池场所、肤晒场所，赛车道或其他用于赌博的设施，或主要业务为销售酒精饮料于场外消费的任何商店

租赁规则拟议规则包括几个描述租赁在 QOZ 上的财产如何符合机会区法的几个非常有用的规则，这些规则特别有用，因为机会区域法本身只包含一个租约的引用，并且之前存在关于规则如何适用于租赁财产的混淆。拟议规则澄清 QOZB 可以租赁物业（包括来自关联方），条件是租赁：（a）于 2017 年 12 月 31 日后订立; （b）以与包括 QOZ 在内的市场条款的公平交易方式签订（根据美国联邦税法第 482 条及相关规定确定）。如果 QOZB 从关联方租赁财产，则拟议规则规定适用两项附加规则：（a）承租人不能向出租人预付超过 12 个月的租金; （b）如果租赁动产的原始使用不是从与租约开始之日起开始，则该租赁的动产将不会被视为 QOZB 财产，除非承租人成为 QOZB 财产的有形财产的所有者并且其价值不低于租赁动产的价值。根据这一规则，使用该财产的区域与承租人使用租赁财产的区域之间必须存在大量重叠。此外，提议条款还包括以下与租赁相关的重要规则：

a) 用于原始使用测试的租赁财产的原始使用从财产为折旧目的首次投入使用之日开始，（或如同该人是该财产的所有者，以允许折旧的方式第一次使用） b) 租赁物业不需要根据重大改善测试大幅改善，即使先前已由先前所有者提供作为使用 c) 反滥用规则规定，如果在购买不动产时订立的“计划、意图或期望”以低于当时确定的财产的公平市场价值购买，而不考虑任何在先租赁费用，租赁财产不符合作为 QOZB 财产拟议规则进一步明确了不动产的所有权和经营（包括租赁）构成贸易或业务的积极行为; 不过仅仅就纳税人拥有的不动产订立三重净租赁，并不是该纳税人对贸易或业务的积极行为。

结论机会区激励措施可能对拥有美国来源资本收益且可以发现 QOZ 中含有显著增值潜力的项目并进行投资的非美国所得税居民纳税人具有吸引力。非美国所得税居民纳税人将需要知道他们的税务身份可能对收益递延、及对一个合格的 QOZ 项目的投资的影响。这些投资人的税务规划应与美国税务顾问和投资人母国的税务顾问密切协调配合。

“不合格金融财产”是指规则中规定的债务，股票，合伙权益，期权，期货合约，远期合约，认股权证，名义主合约，年金及其他类似财产,但不包括以下：（i）合理数额的以现金，现金等价物，或 18 个月以下的短期债务票据构成的营运资金；或（ii）因提供服务或从销售纳税人的股票或出售在税务年度结束时可能应算入纳税人库存的其他财产的正常过程中取得的账款或应收票据，或纳税人主要是为了在其正常贸易或经营过程中向客户出售的财产。

Corporate Jet Insurance and Liability Issues By Gwyn O'Flynn

HIGHLIGHTS  The cost to insure a corporate jet is often the cheapest direct cost of owning a corporate jet, but if anything goes wrong, it is the one thing that is most heavily relied upon by the owner.  Insurance is not a wasted cost just because it may be required only once despite years of paying for it. See it as a protective wrapper shielding your personal wealth from claims exposure.  This Holland & Knight alert provides an overview of insurance and liability issues for corporate jet owners to consider, including elements of coverage, minimum liability limits, considerations when setting liability limits, premium cost, a case study, and the possibility of transferring operational risk and liability to an aircraft management company. Unsurprisingly, given the differential in terms of passenger capacity and in terms of physical size, the latter of which affects the potential to cause third-party injury/damage, liability insurance for corporate jets is generally taken out in a range of only $100 million to $300 million, compared with $750 million to $2 billion for larger commercial aircraft. Surprisingly, all of the other insurance coverages are typically the same as those applicable to larger aircraft operated by commercial airlines.

ELEMENTS OF COVERAGE 1. Hull coverage: This section of the policy covers damage/destruction to the physical structure of the aircraft, including its engines when attached or when removed and not replaced with other engines, but will exclude hull war risks (see below) among other things. The aircraft will typically be insured on an "agreed value basis," which means that it is insured for a fixed amount, which may not necessarily be the same as its replacement value or market value. However, it is worth noting that if the "Agreed Value" is substantially greater than the market value, this could have the effect of limiting the circumstances where a constructive total loss (see the definition below) is declared. 2. Hull war coverage: This section of the policy covers the hull war risks that are excluded from the hull coverage above, such as damage/destruction caused by war or other listed hostilities. There are certain noninsurable exceptions, such as a nuclear war or a war between any of the United Kingdom, United States, France, Russia and China, and there are certain standard exceptions that can be reinstated with relative ease depending on the jurisdiction, such as confiscation by the government of the country of registration. 3. Hull deductible coverage: The hull deductible is similar to the excess on a car policy and applies to the hull coverage. An operator can buy down the hull deductible to a more manageable level for cash flow purposes. Deductible insurance is usually provided on an aggregate basis (which is a cap on the cumulative value of claims that can be made under the policy in any one year). 4. Spares coverage: This section will cover engines and other spare parts when removed from the aircraft and replaced (if an engine or part is removed but not replaced, it is still deemed to be part of the aircraft for insurance purposes and so covered under the hull coverage) up to a certain limit, and may be provided as a sub-section under the hull and the hull war coverages. There is usually a small deductible.

5. Liability coverage: This section covers all loss or damage to property, other than to the aircraft/spares, and all claims arising out of death or injury to any person caused by the aircraft and/or related to the use of the aircraft, but will exclude liability war risks. The minimum liability limit will often be prescribed by law. 6. Liability war coverage: This section of the policy covers the liability war risks excluded from the liability coverage. As with hull war cover, it also has certain non-insurable exceptions, such as nuclear war.

COMMON INSURANCE TERMS 1. Combined Single Limit: This is one combined liability limit for all of the liability insurances (e.g., passenger, cargo, third parties) and is usually stated to be in respect of any one occurrence, with certain sublimits (see No. 3 below as an example). 2. 50/50 clause: This is an agreement between the hull insurer and the hull war insurer to pay half each on any claim for which the cause of the loss, war or non-war, is unclear. This allows the insured to be paid out prior to the determination of the cause. The two insurers will then enter into discussions to agree their actual portion of liability without further reference to the insured. 3. Personal Injury: This is often sub-limited to $25 million for each offense under the Combined Single Limit but, despite the wording used, does not mean physical bodily injury. Instead, it covers injuries such as those caused by libel and slander (i.e., offenses against the person). 4. Constructive Total Loss: An aircraft can be declared a constructive total loss (similar to a car being written off) if the cost to recover it and/or repair it is greater than a particular percentage (usually in the region of 65 percent to 75 percent) of the noted 'Agreed Value'. When purchasing this insurance, it is important not to set the 'Agreed Value' of the insured aircraft too far in excess of the market value because it could result in a situation where an aircraft should be declared a constructive total loss but is instead repaired because doing that is cheaper than paying the "Agreed Value."

MINIMUM LIABILITY LIMITS For liability insurance, a minimum level of cover will often be prescribed by law and is usually based on the passenger capacity and maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the insured aircraft. In the case of a European Union (EU) operator, the relevant legislation is EC Regulation 785/2004. For example, the minimum liability insurance prescribed by EU law for a Gulfstream G650, based on 14 passenger seats and a MTOW of 46,992 kilograms (approximately 51.8 tons), would be $225 million. The UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has produced a useful spreadsheet to enable the minimum EU insurance requirements for an aircraft to be calculated (see EC Regulation 785/2004 Insurance Estimator). All that is required is the aircraft's MTOW, passenger capacity and cargo capacity, and the spreadsheet will do the rest. In addition, many financiers will set minimum liability limits as a condition to financing. It is in the best interests of financiers to have a higher liability limit because of the possibility that claimants will seek to join every party with an interest in the aircraft into the litigation, including the financiers. Financiers will want to ensure that the chances of the insurances being exhausted are minimal.

Otherwise, the operator is free to choose the liability limit as long as it is above the minimum required by law. When deciding on the appropriate level of cover, consider the potential extent of liability if the aircraft injures or kills a high-net-worth individual, its wing tears the underside of a passenger jet cockpit, or it crashes into expensive housing stock or a shopping mall. It is easy to imagine how the minimum liability limit prescribed by law could quickly disappear. In addition, consider that there will almost certainly be exposure to uninsured and/or non-insured risks. So, even if the maximum level of liability insurance that is affordable is purchased, there are still likely going to be restrictions and exceptions under the insurance policies that will have to be self-funded. Many specialist insurance insurers/brokers will provide advice on what levels to purchase, and it will often be cheaper to insure the aircraft with or through one of these parties, rather than include it as an add-on to an existing non-aviation policy.

CONSIDERATIONS WHEN SETTING LIABILITY LIMITS 1. Projected Usage: How many flight hours is it anticipated that the aircraft will be flown each year? Will it perform mostly short-haul or long-haul flights? The typical or projected flight hours and flight-to-cycle ratio will naturally have an effect on the cost, not least because takeoffs and landings are seen as the most risky activities. If the flight-to-cycle ratio is more cycles than hours, consider purchasing a higher liability limit. 2. Pilot Experience: How many hours of experience does the pilot(s) have on the aircraft type? How long has the pilot held his or her license? Are the pilots employed pilots or agency pilots? All of this information will be requested by and analyzed by the insurer when determining price, and insurers will often set minimum flight hour experience levels for the pilots in order for the cover to be effective. So, for example, if an agency pilot is used, somebody should be given responsibility for checking the license of the pilot before the flight in order to ensure that the insurance is not invalidated. 3. Destinations: Is the aircraft likely to be flying over densely populated areas and/or landing at busy airports? Is the aircraft likely to travel to countries with poor infrastructure? Is it likely that the aircraft will travel mostly to the same destinations and on the same routes? Corporate jets, of course, have the ability to land at more airports than commercial jets. For example, it is estimated that there are approximately 500 airports in the U.S. into which commercial jets can fly and about 5,000 U.S. airports into which corporate jets can fly. This means that there is greater potential for corporate jets to fly into smaller airports with fewer safety features, which increases the risk of an incident. But conversely, if the aircraft is typically flown into major airports and on busy flight routes, it will be sharing space with larger and more expensive aircraft, thus increasing the exposure to higher third-party damage claims. 4. Passenger Profile: Will the passengers be mainly employees? Will high-net-worth individuals be carried? If the passengers will mainly be employees, workers' compensation or employers' liability insurance may be available in tandem, which would result in less dependence on the aviation policy, a factor which may help to reduce premium cost. But if high-net-worth individuals are carried, consider the potential for a large loss of future earnings claim. The possibility of being sued by the estate of a close friend or associate cannot be ruled out. It will be of no concern to the estate that the relationship goes "way back."

5. Habitual Base: Will the aircraft be stored in a secure hangar when not in use? Is there 24-5. hour security at the airfield? Is there risk of damage to other aircraft when maneuvering the aircraft around the hangar or airfield, or risk of damage to the aircraft from other aircraft? A dedicated hangar with airfield security is much less of a risk than an airfield parking space with no security. When considering where to park the aircraft, ask if the same spot would be a suitable parking space for a sports car or supercar. Of course, the tornado that swept through an airport in Eufaula, Alabama, in March 2019 demonstrates that even a jet in a hangar on a secure airfield is not always safe from damage/destruction.

PREMIUM COST It is true to say that the higher the level of cover required under liability insurance, then the higher the premium cost. However, this is even more relevant to corporate jets. The lower liability limits for corporate jets typically means that they can be insured 100 percent by one insurer, but as the level of cover is increased, it may be necessary for the broker to spread that risk among a number of insurers, and that can increase the cost exponentially. In addition, an insurer's capacity to take 100 percent of the risk is not just dependent on its size, it is also dependent on the percentage of its capacity that is already taken, so it may be that a smaller insurer can offer the best price. Again, a specialist aviation insurance broker is best placed to advise on the availability of capacity in the market.

THE MARKET According to a recent article by JLT, a London-based insurance broker, several insurers left the business aviation insurance market in 2018 and high losses already in 2019 mean that the remaining insurers are starting to look again at the risks in this market sector, all of which means that premium cost is likely to rise in the near future. In fact, Willis Towers Watson, another London-based insurance broker, predicts premium increases of between 5 percent and 15 percent, with the most significant increases being applied to those operators with any level of loss activity.

CASE STUDY The following case study, prepared by Holland & Knight Partner Gary Halbert, illustrates why it would be unwise to react to rising premium costs by reducing the level of cover purchased: The example involves a corporate jet accident and subsequent litigation in the United States in which Holland & Knight defended the aircraft manufacturer. Litigation arising out of the accident eventually involved claims by the two pilots, a flight attendant, a number of guests as passengers, and the estate of one of the aircraft owners who died in the accident. Although the claims against the manufacturer were relatively straightforward, Holland & Knight had the opportunity to observe the legal challenges and potentially large liability exposure against the aircraft owners' policy created by an ownership structure that was not that unusual for the U.S., but was still relatively complicated. Numerous entities, including a co-owners' business, were sued in the various proceedings requiring a defense of multiple entities under the owners' policy. Those defense obligations alone burdened the Copyright ÂŠ 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

policy. In addition, the litigation ultimately produced potential exposure under the owners' policy from passengers' claims (as would be expected), an employee's claims despite a potential defense under workers' compensation laws in the U.S., and claims related to the fatally injured co-owner as well. Perhaps one of the most significant lessons from being involved in the litigation, though, was the size of the claims arising out of the multimillionaire co-owner's death. The size of the claims offered a lesson to those owners who typically transport multiple guests or other high-net-worth individuals on their aircraft. Such liability exposure for wrongful death or even permanent disability could potentially exceed typical corporate jet coverage amounts. Therefore, the structure of the operating entity or entities, the aircraft usage practices put in place by owners and operators, as well as the insurance policy limits are all important considerations in protecting owners from personal liability for accidents involving their aircraft.

AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT COMPANIES Some corporate jet owners choose to place their aircraft with specialist aircraft management companies as a means of passing on operational responsibility and, to a degree (subject to contract terms), operational risks and liabilities. Such a company usually adds the aircraft to its Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and then looks after every aspect of the operation, maintenance, handling and storage of the aircraft, and, as part of this, the owner may be able to benefit from group discounts on fuel and other services. The larger service providers will even have fleet insurance policies that can cover the aircraft, often for relatively low premium costs (when compared to stand-alone policies). Once covered under an AOC, all operations are "public," requiring compliance with a greater number of rules and regulations when compared to "private" operations. Consequently, it is also possible for these aircraft management companies to market the aircraft to third parties on charter, thus generating revenue from the asset when not required by the owner. This is very much a personal choice, however, and it does not suit every corporate jet owner. In some cases, it may be possible to transfer all operational risk and liability to these management companies. In others, it may be possible to transfer only a portion of it, and in a few it may not be possible to transfer any at all. Much depends on the management company's practices and size, and on the bargaining power of each party when negotiating the management agreement.

FINAL WORD The cost to park, fuel, staff and maintain a corporate jet usually runs to six figures per year for each item. But the cost to insure a corporate jet usually runs to only five figures per year. It is often the cheapest direct cost of owning a corporate jet, but if anything goes wrong, it is the one thing that is most heavily relied upon by the owner. Insurance is not a wasted cost just because it may be required only once despite years of paying for it. See it as a protective wrapper shielding your personal wealth from claims exposure, and buy the biggest and strongest wrapper you can.

公务飞机保险及责任问题原文作者：Gwyn O’Flynn

重点摘要  公务飞机的保险成本通常是拥有一架公务飞机的直接成本中最低的一部分，但如有发生了问题，它是所有人最依赖的一件事。  保险不会因为需常年支付费用但可能只需用到一次而成为浪费。应该把它视为保护您财富不会遭受索赔风险的保护罩。  本霍兰德奈特法律风险提示文章对公务飞机的所有人所应考量的保险及风险问题作出一个概要介绍，包括保险范围、最低责任限额、制定责任限额时应考虑的因素、保费、个案研究、及将营业风险及责任转移到一飞机管理公司的可能性。不意外地，考虑到公务飞机的载客人数及体积大小的差别（而体积的大小可能对造成第三方的伤亡/损失有所影响），一般公务飞机的责任保险额度为一亿到三亿美元，而较大的商业航空飞机的保险额度为七亿五千万美元到二十亿美元。而令人感到意外的是，所有其他保险额度通常与适用于商业航空公司所使用的较大型飞机一样。

保险范围的部分 1. 机体保险：保单的这个部分含盖对飞机实体结构的损害及毁坏，包括附着于机体的发动机及被拆下但尚未被替换的发动机，但将排除机体战争风险（请见以下）等其他事。飞机通常会依“商定的价值基础”加以保险，而其意味它是以固定金额的方式保险，而该固定金额不见得与它的重置价格或市场价值一样。不过，值得提到的是如果“商定价值”显著高于市场价值时，这可能会有限缩在什么情况下可以宣告推定全损的情况（如下所述）。 2. 机体战争保险：保单的这个部分含盖上述机体保险所排除的机体战争保险，例如因为战争或其他所列冲突所造成的损失及毁损。而存在某些不予承保的例外情况，例如核子战争或发生于英国、美国、法国、俄罗斯及中国间的战争，而且某些标准除外情形可以在某些管辖地区以相对简单的方式加回保险范围，例如被注册国政府没收的风险。 3. 机体免赔额保险:机体免赔额与汽车保险的保额超出部分相似且适用于机体保险。运营商可购买将机体免赔额降低至较可管理的程度以利现金流控管。免赔额保险通常是在合计的基础上提供的（这是在任何一年中以该保险可以提出索赔请求的总额的上限）。 4. 备件保险：这个部分含盖发动机及其他从飞机上拆下且经更换的备件（如发动机或备件从飞机上拆下但未受更换时，从保险的目的而言，他们将视为飞机的部分而被机体保险含盖）至某些限额，且可以作为机体保险及机体战争保险的次项目保险。通常也存在一个小的免赔额。 5. 责任保险：这个部分含盖所有机体/备件之外财产的损失或损害、及因飞机及/或飞机的使用而致任何人死亡或受伤所产生的所有索赔，但将排除责任战争风险。通常法律会规定最低的责任保险金额。

6. 责任战争保险：保单的这个部分含盖责任保险所排除的责任战争保险。而和机体战争保险一样，它也包含一些不予承保的例外，例如核子战争。

一般的保险条款 1. 合并单一限额：这是所有责任保险（例如乘客、货物、第三人保险）的合并责任限额，且通常规定与任何一次事故有关，具有某些附属限制（请见以下第三项中的例子）。 2. 50/50 条款：这是机体保险人及机体战争险保险人同意在造成损失的原因是因为战争或非战争不明时，各付该损失请求一半的约定。这个条款让被保险人在原因确定前可先获得保险理赔。而两个保险人将在其后讨论并同意各自承担的实际责任额度而不需再牵涉被保险人。 3. 个人伤害：在合并单一限额下，通常另外限制每一侵害的限额为 2500 万美元，但尽管保单的文字如此叙述，其并不是实体身体伤害。相反地，它包含因文字或口头毁谤所造成的伤害（对人格的伤害）。 4. 推定全损：如回复及/或修复的费用高于注明的“商定价值”的一定百分百（通常为 65%到 75%之间）时，一架飞机可以被宣告为推定全损。当购买本保险时，很重要的是不要将“商定价值”设的高于市场价值太多，因为它将导致飞机虽应该被推定为全损，但因修理比支付“商定价值”更便宜而以修理的方式处理。

最低责任限额就责任保险而言，法律通常会根据保险的飞机的载客人数及最高起飞重量（MTOW）规定最低程度的保额。对欧盟的营运商而言，相关的法律是欧盟法规第 785/2004 条。例如，欧盟法律基于 14 个座位及最高起飞重量为 46,992 公斤(大约 51.8 吨)，规定湾流 G650 公务机的最低责任保险限额为两亿两千五百万美元。英国的民航总局（CAA）制作了一份很有用的列表以帮助欧盟的飞机最低保险要求的计算(请见 EC Regulation 785/2004 Insurance Estimator)。只需填入飞机的最高起飞重量、载客人数及货运量，该列表会自动处理其他计算过程。此外，许多提供融资的人将会把最低责任限制作为融资的一个条件。对提供融资的人最有利的是设立一个较高的责任限制，因为提出请求的人将寻求将每一个利益相关方（包括提供融资的人）加入诉讼的可能性。提供融资的人将希望能确保保险将被耗尽的可能性为最小。除此之外，营运商可自由选择责任的限制，只要其超过法律所要求的最低限额。当决定什么是合适的保险额度标准时，应考虑飞机将造成高净值人士受伤或死亡、它的机翼撕裂乘客飞机的驾驶舱、或它坠毁于一昂贵的住宅区或购物中心的可能责任程度。可以很简单地想象到法律所规定的最低责任限制将很快地被用尽。此外，考虑到几乎会存在曝露于没有包含于保险及/或没有保险的风险。所以即使购买了买得起的最高额责任保险，仍然有可能存在保险单中有些限制及例外规定而需自付。许多专业的保险人/经纪人将提供应购买保险程度的咨询建议，且通常透过这些人士来对飞机进行投保会较便宜些，而不是只将飞机的保险加在现存非飞机的保单之中。 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

制定责任限额的考量 1. 预期的使用量: 每年飞机预定将飞行的小时数是多少? 它将大部分进行短程飞行或长程飞行？一般或预计的飞行小时数及飞行周期将自然地对成本产生影响，特别是起飞及降落被视为是最危险的活动。如果飞行周期的比率比飞行小时更高，应考虑购买一个较高责任额度的保险。 2. 驾驶员的经验: 驾驶员就这类飞机有多少小时的驾驶经验？驾驶员持有其飞行驾驶资格多久了？驾驶员是雇佣的驾驶员还是代理人的驾驶员? 保险人会要求所有这些信息并加以分析以订定价格，且保险人通常将规定驾驶员必须有多少小时的飞行经验以使保险生效。所以，例如，如果使用一个透过代理安排的驾驶员的话，在飞行前必须有人来负责查核该驾驶员的执照以确保保险不会被视为无效。 3. 目的地: 飞机可能飞越人口密集的地区或降落于繁忙的机场吗？飞机可能飞到基础设施欠缺的国家吗？飞机可能将大部分飞到同一个目的地及飞行同一航线吗? 公务机当然有能力比商业航空的飞机降落在更多的机场。例如，预估在美国有 500 个机场商业航空的飞机可以飞到，而大约有 5000 个机场公务机可以飞到。这意味公务机更有可能飞到较少安全设施的较小型机场，而其将增加事故的风险几率。但相反地，如果飞机一般是飞主要机场及繁忙的航线，他将与较大及较昂贵的飞机分享空间，因此增加曝露于第三方损害赔偿主张的风险。 4. 乘客的背景: 乘客将主要为员工吗? 飞机将载送高净值人士吗？如果乘客将主要是员工，员工补偿或员工责任保险将可能同时使用，而该情况将可以减少依赖航空保险、而这个情况将会有助降低保费。但如果有载送高净值的人士时，需考虑有较高的未来收入损失的可能性。而被亲近的朋友或同事的继承人提出诉讼的可能性也不能排除。对继承人而言，他们将不在乎他们与死亡的人员的关系“很疏远”。 5. 惯常基地: 飞机不使用时会存放在安全的停机坪上吗？机场有 24 小时的保防吗？飞机在停机坪或机场移动时存在损害到其他飞机的风险、或存在其他飞机造成本飞机损害的风险吗？一个在有保安设施的专用停机坪比一个没有保安设施的机场停机空间风险来的小多。当考虑在那里停飞机时，询问是否同一空间适合停放跑车或超级汽车。当然，2019 年 3 月横扫阿拉巴马州 Eufaula 的龙卷风证明即使飞机存放在安全的机场的停机坪中也不全然免于受损或被毁坏的风险。

保费可以说责任保险的保障程度越高，保费成本就会越高。而这个说法用在公务机上更适切。公务机有较低的责任限制时意味一个保险人即可完全承保，但保险范围增加时，保险经纪人可能需要将风险分散于几个保险人，而其可能将大大地增加保险成本。此外，保险人承担百分之一百的风险的能力不只取决于其规模，也取决于其承保能力是否已被使用，所以存在一个较小的保险人可以提供最好的价格的可能性。

再次，一个专业的航空保险经纪人将最能提供市场上那个保险公司仍有承保能力的咨询。

市场根据位于伦敦的保险经纪人 JLT 最近的文章指出，2018 年几个保险人离开的商业航空保险的市场，且 2019 年已发生了高额的损失意味剩下的保险人将开始检视这个市场的风险，而这些所有的因素意味保费可能将在不久的将来提高。事实上，另一个位于伦敦的保险经纪人 Willis Towers Watson 预估保险费将提高百分之五到百分之十五，而有任何损失记录的营运商的保费将又将最显著地提高。

案例研究下列由美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所合伙人 Gary Halbert 准备的案例说明了为什么以降低购买的保险范围的程度以因应增加的保费不是一个明智的做法。这个例子牵涉到一个公务机的事故及其后由美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所为飞机制造商进行辩护的美国诉讼。由一事故产生的诉讼最后牵涉到两个驾驶员、一个空服员、一些作为客人的乘客、及一个在事故中死亡的飞机所有人的继承人的请求。虽然对飞机制造商的请求相对简单。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务有机会观察到由一个在美国不是那么常见但仍相对复杂的所有权架构所产生的飞机所有人保单所带来的法律挑战及可能的大规模风险。许多机构，包括共同所有人的事业在许多诉讼中被告，而必须依所有人的保单对许多机构进行辩护。仅仅这些辩护的义务就对保单增加了许多负担。此外，诉讼最终造成所有人的保单受到乘客的索赔请求（如同预期一般），一个雇员的索赔请求（即使依据美国的员工补偿法律可作出可能的辩护）,及有关因受伤而致死亡的同事的索赔请求。而参与该诉讼可能得到最大的经验的是由此亿万富翁的死亡而产生请求的规模。请求的规模给予这些通常以他们的飞机载送许多乘客或其他高净值人士的飞机所有人一个教训。过失致死或甚至永久伤残的责任风险可能超过一般的公司公务机保险金额。因此，所有人及营运商所设置的营运机构结构及飞机使用做法及保险单的限额都是保护所有人免受因他们的飞机的事故所产生的个人责任的重要考量。

飞机管理公司有些公司的公务机选择将他们的飞机交给专业的飞机管理公司，以将管理责任（或在某些程度之内的营运风险及责任）由管理公司依据合约规定承担。该等公司通常将飞机加入其航空营运商证书，而在之后对飞机营运、保养、处理、及储存的每一环节进行照顾，而作为其中一部，所有人可以得到油料及其他服务的折扣。而大型的服务提供商甚至将有保费相较于单一飞机保险更低的包含飞机机队的保险合约。一旦包含于航空营运商证书之下，所有的营运将成为“公开的”，并被要求遵守相较于“私人”营运更多的规定与规则。而其结果是让飞机管理公司有可能将飞机行销给第三方作为包机，因此在所有人不需要使用时从该资产产生收益。这是个人的选择，但并不适用于每一个公务机的所有人。在某些例子中，可能将所有营运风险和责任移转到这些管理公司。在其他例子中，可能只能移转其中一部分、而在少数的情形下，将完全不可能进行任何移转。这大多需取决于管理公司的做法及规模、及各方在协商管理合同时的谈判筹码。

结语停放飞机、加油、人员费用及保养公务机的每项成本通常每年会达到十几万到数十万美元。但公务机的保险成本通常每年只会是几万美元。它通常是拥有公务机的直接成本中最低的一项，但如果出差错时，它是所有人最高度仰赖的一项。保险并非是浪费的成本，尽管每年支付但可能只需用到一次。请将它视为一个对您的个人财富的保护罩，而购买您能买的的最大及最强的保护膜。

The "Do's and Don'ts" of Interacting with U.S. Law Enforcement By Vince Farhat and Stacey H. Wang Virtually every major industry now is regulated by U.S. government agencies, so there is an increasing chance that international companies and business executives may come into contact with representatives of U.S. law enforcement in connection with their activities. Being prepared is more important than ever. Why? Because the U.S. Department of Justice is now focusing on pursuing individual executives in addition to punishing companies. Companies and executives should be prepared when U.S. investigators "knock on your door." Individuals need to be ready to respond in a way that protects themselves and their company's interests without running the risk of being accused of cover-ups and obstruction of justice.

A CAUTIONARY TALE This true story illustrates the perils of interacting with U.S. law enforcement without first engaging American legal counsel. A businessman born outside the U.S. used to work for a U.S. company in the U.S. After he stopped working for that company, the businessman returned to his homeland and took a job with a local company. But he did not know that his former employer in the U.S. had complained to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after he left the company. While he was living abroad, the FBI conducted an investigation and interviewed witnesses from his former employer. When the unsuspecting businessman visited the U.S. for a work-related conference years later, FBI agents met him at the airport and asked him questions about his former employer. Thinking he hadn't done anything wrong, the businessman tried in good faith to answer the FBI agents' questions. Unfortunately, the FBI believed and later claimed he "confessed" to federal crimes during the impromptu airport interview and he was later indicted by U.S. federal prosecutors. What should you do when the FBI confronts you at an airport or knocks on your door? Exercise your U.S. constitutional right to remain silent and do not make any statements to law enforcement. Explicitly state that you wish to have your American legal counsel present.

LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS Historically, U.S. law enforcement has investigated financial crimes using conventional white collar investigative tools such as document subpoenas, witness interviews and grand jury testimony. But in recent years financial fraud investigators have increased their use of "street crime" investigative techniques such as body wires, search warrants and wiretaps to investigate white collar crime. U.S. government agencies have powerful weapons in their arsenal to investigate companies, including: ď Ž Field Interviews: Agents may arrive at your company unannounced, secure an immediate interview with an employee without defense counsel present and obtain damaging admissions as a result. Investigators may also approach employees at their homes, at night or on weekends when company officers who might provide guidelines are inaccessible. ď Ž Civil Investigative Demands: An extraordinarily powerful civil investigative tool that enables the Justice Department to obtain pre-lawsuit documentary material, interrogatories or oral examinations.

 Administrative Subpoenas: The offices of Inspector General (IG) in numerous federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), are authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978 to subpoena documents to assist in the performance of the IG's regulatory functions. Unlike grand jury subpoenas, administrative subpoenas compel only the production of documents and may not compel oral testimony. But IGs can share information obtained from administrative subpoenas with criminal and civil prosecutors.  Grand Jury Subpoenas: Used in criminal cases, federal grand jury subpoenas are nationwide in scope, and can be used to obtain documents and testimony. These are secret proceedings and witnesses have no right to have counsel present when testifying.  Search Warrants: Issued by a federal judge or magistrate. These are being used more frequently, especially where there is fear that documents or other evidence will be destroyed or altered.  Cooperating Witnesses: Law enforcement will occasionally "wire up" people who are cooperating in investigations so that they can secretly record conversations with subjects and targets of investigations. Prosecutors will seek to have these recordings admitted as evidence in criminal trials.  Wiretaps: Under certain special circumstances, a U.S. court can authorize government investigators to surreptitiously record both parties to a phone conversation. This is called "going up on a wire." These "intercepted calls" can help build up probable cause for search warrants and criminal indictments.  "Dumpster Diving": Financial and billing information can wind up in the trash. In most cases, there is no expectation of privacy if trash is placed on the street to be collected by garbage collection agency. Agents often do trash runs to help build up probable cause for search warrants.  Surveillance: This is the oldest investigation tool in the box. Agents will sometimes "sit" on a location, watch who goes in and out, and take photographs and video.

AVOIDING ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE The rules governing obstruction of justice prescribe numerous offenses, some broad and some very specific. In general, it is unlawful to intentionally endeavor or succeed in influencing, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice in pending judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. When responding to subpoenas, companies should keep in mind that corporate entities in the U.S. have no privilege against self-incrimination. If a company is served a records custodian subpoena, you likely will not be in a position to request "production immunity" and will be compelled to produce documents. There also are many potential pitfalls in responding to government subpoenas, including continuing document retention policies after learning of an investigation. This could be viewed in hindsight as obstruction of justice. Given this risk, companies should engage qualified American legal counsel to assist in responding to any U.S. government subpoena. In some cases, your first contact with U.S. law enforcement may come during the execution of a search warrant. Dealing with a search warrant at your company feels like the "heat of battle." So, it is particularly important to remember that communications in the "heat of battle" can set the tone for future communications with the government. As former prosecutors, we know that first impressions really do matter. A company's professional response to a search warrant sets a more positive and civil tone for the investigation An unprofessional or sloppy response will create mistrust between you and the government that will hurt your company.

If your company is searched, never interfere with the agents. A court has issued the warrant after a finding of probable cause and the agents have broad discretion in executing the warrant. It could be viewed as obstruction of justice if you interfere with the agents. However, you are permitted to (and should) review the warrant. It authorizes a search of a particular place for particular items and the agents should not exceed the scope of the warrant. If agents exceed limits, do not obstruct, but advise agents in the presence of witnesses that you believe that they may have exceeded the warrant's scope. Companies should consider engaging qualified counsel to assist in preparing a search warrant response plan so your employees are prepared in the event that the FBI comes knocking. Counsel can provide company personnel with guidance on what to do when agents ask for consent to go beyond the scope of the warrant, how to lawfully protect privileged and proprietary documents, and the "do's and don'ts" of protecting your rights without crossing the line to obstruction of justice.

BE PREPARED Remember what happened to the businessman who was questioned by the FBI at the airport; what the agents did seems unfair, but the businessman also could have exercised his right to remain silent and asked for his lawyer to be present. The moral of the story? Be prepared. Don't interact with U.S. law enforcement without first knowing your rights and engaging counsel.

与美国执法部门接触时“应该做及不应该做的事” 原文作者：Vince Farhat 及 Stacey H. Wang 现在几乎所有的主要行业都必须受到美国政府部门的监管，因此跨国公司和企业高管有越来越多的机会与美国执法部门的人员就其活动进行接触。而在进行接触前做好准备比以往任何时候都更重要。因为美国司法部现在除了对公司进行惩罚外，还把重点放在寻求高管个人责任。当美国调查人员“找上门”时，公司和高管应该做好准备。个人需要做好能以保护自己和公司利益的方式做出回应而同时不会有被指控隐瞒和妨碍司法的风险的准备。

一个警示性的故事这个真实的故事说明了在没有首先聘请美国律师的情况下就与美国执法部门进行接触的风险。一个出生在美国以外的商人曾经在美国的一家公司工作。在他停止为那家公司工作后，这个商人回到了自己的国家，在当地一家公司找到了一份工作。但他不知道他美国的前雇主在他离开公司后曾向美国联邦调查局（FBI）投诉。当他在国外生活时，联邦调查局进行了调查，并与他的前雇主的证人进行面谈。几年后，当这位毫无戒心的商人回美国参加一个与工作有关的会议时，联邦调查局的人员在机场与他见面，问他一些关于他以前雇主的问题。这位商人以为自己没有做错什么，就诚意地回答了联邦调查局人员的问题。不幸的是，联邦调查局认为并在后来声称他在机场的未经准备的面谈中“承认”了联邦罪行，后来被美国联邦检察官起诉。当联邦调查局在机场与你见面或找上门时，你该怎么办？你应该行使美国宪法赋予的保持沉默的权利，而不要对执法部门作出任何陈述。并且明确声明你希望你的美国律师在场提供协助。

执法部门的调查工具历史上，美国执法部门使用传统的白领犯罪调查工具（如传票、证人访谈和大陪审团证词）调查金融犯罪。但近年来，金融欺诈的调查人员增加了对“街头犯罪”调查技术的使用，如身上安装监听器材、搜查令、和以监听方式来调查白领犯罪。美国政府机构有强大的调查工具来调查公司，包括：  实地采访：调查人员可以不事先通知就到你的公司，而在没有辩护律师在场的情况下立即与员工面谈，从而获得具有损害性的承认证词。调查人员也可以在雇员的家里、晚上或周末找上雇员，使他们没有办法获得在一般情况下可以得到的公司指导协助。  民事调查要求：这是一个使司法部能够获得诉讼前的文件材料、进行审问或口头查询的一种强而有力的民事调查工具。  行政传唤：1978 年《检察长法》授权许多联邦机构的检察长办公室（IG），包括卫生与公众服务部（ HHS）、国防部（DOD）、总务管理局（GSA）和退伍军人事务部（VA），发出传唤文件以协助检察长办公室执行其监管指责。与大陪审团传唤不同，行政传唤只能强制要求出示文件而不能强制要求出具口头证词。但检察长办公室可以与刑事和民事检察官分享从行政传唤中获得的信息。

 大陪审团传唤：用于刑事案件，联邦大陪审团传唤在全国适用，可用于要求文件和证词的提出。这些都是秘密程序且证人在作证时无权要求律师在场。  搜查令：由联邦法官或地方执行官签发。搜查令尤其在担心文件或其他证据会被销毁或更改的情况下更经常被使用。  合作证人：执法部门偶尔会在那些在调查中合作的人的身上“安装监听器具”，以便他们可以秘密记录与调查对象和目标的谈话。检察官将寻求把这些录音作为刑事审判的呈堂证据。  监听：在某些特殊情况下，美国法院可以授权政府调查人员秘密记录双方的电话交谈。这叫做“搭线” 。这些“截获的电话交谈”有助于建立获取搜查令和刑事起诉的合理根据。  垃圾桶搜寻：财务和账单信息可能会被扔进垃圾桶。在大多数情况下，对被放置在街道上等待垃圾收集机构单位收集的垃圾是不能期待有隐私权保护的。调查人员们经常透过垃圾处理的过程来帮助建立获得搜查令的合理根据。  监视：这是工具箱里最古老的调查工具。调查人员有时会“坐在”某个地点，观察谁进进出出、并进行拍照和录像。

避免遭受妨碍司法的指控关于妨碍司法的规则规定了许多罪行，有些是宽泛的，有些是非常具体的。一般来说，在进行中的司法或准司法程序，故意进行或意图成功影响、妨碍或妨碍司法管理是违法的。在回应传票时，各公司应牢记，美国的企业实体并不享有不对自己做不利证词的权利。如果一家公司接到要求报告记录的传票时，你可能无法申请“不予提出的豁免”，并将被迫作出文件的提出。回应政府传票也有许多潜在的陷阱，包括在知道调查后仍继续依正常情况执行公司文件保留的政策。这样做事后看来可能被视为为妨碍司法的行为。鉴于这一风险，各公司应聘请合适的美国律师来协助回应任何美国政府传票。在某些情况下，您与美国执法部门的第一次接触可能是在执行搜查令的时间。在的公司处理搜查令就像是“进行战斗”一样，因此，特别重要的是要记住，“进行战斗”中的沟通可以为未来与政府的沟通设定基调。作为前检察官，我们知道第一印象确实很重要。一家公司对搜查令的专业回应为调查设定了一种更积极、更友善的基调。一个不专业或不谨慎的回应会在你和政府之间造成不信任，从而伤害你的公司。如果你的公司被搜查了，千万不要干涉调查人员。法院在对合理根据作出裁决后签发了搜查令，调查人员在执行搜查令时有非常广泛的自由裁量权。如果你干涉调查人员，可能会被视为妨碍司法。但是，您可以（并且应该）检视该搜查令。它授权在特定地点搜查特定物品，调查人员不得超出搜查令的范围。如果调查人员超过了限制，不要阻拦，但要在证人在场的情况下告知调查人员，你相信他们可能已经超出了搜查令的范围。各公司应考虑聘请合适的律师协助制定搜查令回应计划，以使你的员工在联邦调查局登门时能做好准备。律师可以为公司人员提供指导以了解当调查人员要求公司同意超出授权范围应如何合法保护享有特权和专有的文件，以及了解如何在不妨碍司法的情况下进行你“应该做和不应该做”的事以保护你的权利。

做好准备

记住在机场被联邦调查局审问的商人发生了什么；调查人员所做的似乎不公平，但商人也可以行使保持沉默的权利并要求他的律师到场。这个故事的寓意是：做好准备。在没有事先了解你的权利和聘请律师的情况下，不要与美国执法部门进行沟通。

New Treasury Regulations Revise Taxation of U.S. Persons Owning Foreign Corporations Guidance Will Impact Minority Partners in Domestic Partnerships By Alan Winston Granwell, William M. Sharp, Robert G. Lorndale and Christopher Fiore Marotta

HIGHLIGHTS  In an unanticipated development, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued regulations (New Guidance) that significantly modifies the taxation of U.S. persons owning stock of foreign corporations through domestic partnerships.  The New Guidance will impact planning and 2018 compliance/reporting decisions. For domestic partnerships and limited liability companies (LLCs) with minority U.S. partners, including private equity funds and alternative investment vehicles, the New Guidance becomes an immediate 2018 compliance action item.  This Holland & Knight alert is a high-level summary and should not be viewed a comprehensive discussion of the New Guidance or its intricacies. Under New Guidance issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, stock of foreign corporations owned directly or indirectly by a domestic partnership will be treated as owned proportionately by its partners for purposes of determining the amount of a partner's Subpart F income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) inclusions that are currently taxable to such partner. U.S. partners of a domestic partnership who are not U.S. Shareholders of a CFC (Minority U.S. Partners) will not have a Subpart F or GILTI inclusion. The New Guidance is a favorable change and a reversal of the U.S. tax consequences to Minority U.S. Partners under prior law. However, as a result of this change, Minority U.S. Partners now need to be more sensitive to potential U.S. tax exposure under the passive foreign investment company (PFIC) provisions. Chinese investors who are U.S. taxpayers may decide to invest in private equity funds, hedge funds or alternative investment vehicles that are domestic (U.S.) partnerships that hold interests in non-U.S. corporations. In an important development, the U.S. tax authorities have proposed a favorable modification that can eliminate U.S. taxation to these Chinese investors. This Holland & Knight article explains details about the proposed modification.

BACKGROUND After the 2017 U.S. tax reform (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or TCJA), passive income and most active income of a CFC is currently taxable to the CFC's U.S. Shareholders under the Subpart F Income and GILTI provisions. 1 To avoid current taxation, a U.S. person should not become a U.S. Shareholder of a CFC; however, in that case, a U.S. investor also must consider potential U.S. tax exposure under the passive foreign investment company (PFIC) provisions. Under the law prior to the new Treasury regulations, the U.S. tax consequences to a Minority U.S. Partner who invested in a partnership that owned a foreign corporation depended on whether the partnership was formed under domestic or foreign law.

EXAMPLE The simple example below illustrates the U.S. tax consequences under Subpart F and GILTI, pre- and postNew Guidance. Assume: Partnership (P) owns 100 percent of foreign corporation (F Co); F Co is a CFC; and F Co derives Subpart F income and GILTI subject to inclusion by U.S. Shareholders. P has three unrelated U.S. partners: A has an 80 percent interest in P; B has an 11 percent interest in P; and C has a 9 percent interest in P.

U.S. TAX CONSEQUENCES UNDER SUBPART F RULE PRIOR TO NEW GUIDANCE If P were a domestic partnership:  P would be treated as an entity.  P would be the U.S. Shareholder of F Co even though it is a pass-through entity.  P would include F Co's Subpart F income in its income.  Partners A, B and C each would be required to include their distributive share of P's Subpart F income in their income. Note, Partner C would not have had an inclusion if the investment in F Co had been made directly or through a foreign partnership. If P were a foreign partnership:  P would be deemed an aggregate of its partners.  Partners A, B and C would be deemed to own F Co by reference to their respective interests in P.  Partners A and B each would be a U.S. Shareholder of F Co.  Partner A would have an 80 percent Subpart F inclusion and Partner B would have an 11 percent Subpart F inclusion.  P would not be treated as a U.S. Shareholder of F Co.

 Partner C would not have a Subpart F inclusion.

U.S. TAX CONSEQUENCES UNDER GILTI PRIOR TO NEW GUIDANCE The Treasury and IRS had proposed a "hybrid" approach to deal with GILTI inclusions for partners of domestic partnerships to accommodate certain computational aspect of the GILTI provisions.  U.S. partners who were not U.S. Shareholders were taxable on GILTI inclusions in the same manner as under the entity approach for Subpart F inclusions, described above. Thus, Partner C would have a GILTI inclusion.  U.S. partners who were U.S. Shareholders of F Co (Partners A and B) were treated as having invested in F Co as though P were a foreign partnership, and would have a GILTI inclusion but, depending on circumstances, potentially could have mitigated that inclusion under the GILTI provisions.

U.S. TAX CONSEQUENCES FOR SUBPART F AND GILTI INCLUSIONS UNDER NEW GUIDANCE A domestic partnership owning stock in a foreign corporation is treated as an aggregate of its members in the same manner as if the domestic partnership were a foreign partnership. Thus:     

Partners A and B each would be a U.S. Shareholder of F Co. Partner A would have an inclusion of 80 percent. Partner B would have an inclusion of 11 percent. Partner C would not be a U.S. Shareholder in F Co. Partner C would not have any inclusion.

Note: If a true foreign partnership had been used, an aggregate basis would also have applied.

WHY NEW GUIDANCE WAS ADOPTED? Stakeholders commented on the complexity and administrability of the hybrid approach. The Treasury and IRS agreed and issued final GILTI regulations adopting the New Guidance. The Treasury and IRS also proposed to extend the New Guidance to Subpart F inclusions because: 1) the GILTI and Subpart F income regimes were intended to work in tandem, 2) substantial complexity and uncertainty would result if the two regimes were not coordinated, and 3) differing treatments would make it more difficult for taxpayers to comply and for the IRS to audit.

NEW GUIDANCE EFFECTIVE DATES The New Guidance has differing effective dates, depending on its application for GILTI or Subpart F income purposes.

GILTI INCLUSIONS  Applies to tax years of foreign corporations beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, and to tax years of U.S. Shareholders in which, or within which, the foreign corporation's tax year ends.

SUBPART F INCLUSIONS  Applies to tax years of foreign corporations beginning on or after the date of publication of the New Guidance as a final Treasury Department regulation, which will be a prospective date.  However, U.S. taxpayers (Early Adopters) may elect to apply the New Guidance to tax years of foreign corporations beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, and tax years of U.S. shareholders with or within which the foreign corporation's tax year ends, provided that the New Guidance is applied consistently by the domestic partnership, its U.S. Shareholder(s) and related parties.

SOME TAKEAWAYS  Eliminates GILTI and Subpart F income inclusion exposures for Minority U.S. Partners.  An "S" corporation is treated as a partnership. Thus, for GILTI inclusions, the S corporation is treated as an aggregate under the New Guidance. The IRS has requested comments as to the extension of the New Guidance to other pass-through entities, including trusts and estates.  U.S. Shareholder and CFC determinations are complex. Do not overlook the complex direct, indirect and constructive attribution rules, including the new TCJA Downward Attribution provisions, which are not intuitive. A useful approach is to chart out ownership structures. The nontaxability of Minority U.S. Partners potentially implicates exposures under the PFIC provisions, particularly the application of the CFC/PFIC overlap rule.  The nontaxability of Minority U.S. Partners under the New Guidance further raises 2018 compliance issues for domestic partnerships and their U.S. partners, depending on filing circumstances and the potential application of the PFIC provisions.  IRS international information reporting requirements remain unchanged.  Note that on July 10, 2019, the IRS issued proposed regulations under the PFIC provisions clarifying 1) the PFIC indirect ownership provisions, 2) the application of the Income Test and the Asset Test, and 3) the insurance exception. U.S. taxpayers who have potential PFIC concerns as described in this alert should review this new guidance. For additional information or assistance with implementation of the New Guidance, contact the authors or another member of our Taxation Team.

A foreign corporation is a CFC when U.S. Shareholders, under broad ownership rules, own more than 50 percent of the vote or value of a foreign corporation. A U.S. Shareholder is a U.S. person who, under broad ownership rules, owns 10 percent or more of the vote or value of the foreign corporation.

新的财政部规则修改了对持有外国公司的美国人士的课税做法指导规则将对国内合伙中持有少数权益的合伙人产生影响

原文作者：Alan Winston Granwell, William M. Sharp, Robert G. Lorndale 及 Christopher Fiore Marotta

重点摘要  在一个不在预期之内的状况下，美国财政部（财政部）及国税局（国税局）近日发布了一个将重大改变透过国内合伙组织持有外国公司股份的美国人士的课税方式的规则（新的指导规则）。  新的指导规则将对 2018 年的法规遵循及申报决定产生影响。对有持有少数权益的美国合伙人的国内合伙组织及有限责任公司（LLCs）（包括私募基金及其他投资工具），新的指导规则将立即成为 2018 年的法规遵循行动项目。  本美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的法规提示文章是一个对新的指导规则的高层面摘要，不应被视为对新的指导规则及其所涵盖的复杂问题的广泛讨论。

在美国财政部的新的指导规则之下，股份由国内合伙组织直接或间接持有的外国公司，为决定该合伙人目前被计入并被课税的 F 次部分收入及全球无形低税收入（GILTI）金额的目的，其将被视为由其合伙人按比例持有。国内合伙组织的美国合伙人如果不是被控制的外国公司（CFC）（持有少数权益的美国合伙人）的股东的话，将不会有 F 次部分收入或被计入课税的全球无形低税收入（GILTI）金额。新的指导规则是一个有利的改变及是一个对之前法律对持有少数权益的美国合伙人的税务效果的改变。不过，由于这个改变，持有少数权益的美国合伙人现需对依被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款所产生可能的美国税务风险特别加以注意。作为美国纳税人的中国投资人可决定投资于作为持有非美国公司的美国国内合伙组织的私募基金、避险基金或其他非传统的投资工具。而作为一个重要的发展，美国税务机关提出了一个可以免除中国投资人的美国课税义务的有利修改。我们的以下法律提示将告诉您如何可以做到该情况。

背景信息 2017 年的美国税务改革（减税及创造就业机会法案或税改法案）通过后，一个被控制的外国公司（CFC）的被动收入及大多数的主动收入目前是按 F 次部分收入及全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的条款的规定对 CFC 的美国股东 1 课税。为避免该税负，美国人士应不要成为 CFC 的美国股东；不过，在该情况下，美国投资人也必须考量依被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款所产生可能的美国税务风险。依据新的财政部规则之前的法律，对投资持有外国公司的合伙组织的少数权益美国合伙人如何课税取决于该合伙组织是依美国国内法或外国法设立。

示例下列简单的示例说明了在新的指导规则发布之前及之后依 F 次部分收入及全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的条款的美国税务影响。

假设：P 合伙组织（P）持有外国公司（F 公司）100%的股份；F 公司是一个被控制的外国公司；且 F 公司有应计入美国股东收入的 F 次部分收入及全球无形低税收入（GILTI）。P 有 3 个无关的美国合伙人：即持有 P 80%权益的 A、持有 P 11%权益的 B、和持有 P 9%权益的 C。

在新的指导规则之前依 F 次部分收入规则的美国税务效果如果 P 是个美国国内的合伙组织：  P 将被视为一个实体。  虽然 P 只是一个通过性的实体，P 将被视为 F 公司的美国股东。  P 将需将 F 公司的 F 次部分收入包含入 P 的收入。  A、B 及 C 合伙人将被要求将他们所分配到 P 的 F 次部分收入计入他们的收入。需注意的是，如果投资是透过一外国合伙组织直接投入 F 公司的话，C 合伙人则将不需做该计入。如果 P 是个外国合伙组织：  P 将被视为其合伙人的总和。  A、B 及 C 合伙人将因其分别持有 P 的权益被视为持有 F 公司。  A 及 B 合伙人将是 F 公司的美国股东。  A 及 B 合伙人将分别计入 F 次部分收入的 80%及 11%到他们各自的收入。  P 将不会被视为是 F 公司的美国股东。  C 合伙人将不会有 F 次部分收入的计入。 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

在新的指导规则之前依全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的条款的规定的美国税务效果财政部及国税局提出了一个“混合”式的做法来处理国内合伙组织的合伙人如何计入全球无形低税收入（GILTI）条款的某些计算问题，  美国合伙人如不是美国股东的话，他们将以与上述计入 F 次部分收入的机构做法的方式来处理国内合伙组织的合伙人如何计入全球无形低税收入（GILTI）计入及课税。因此，C 合伙人将有全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的计入。  作为 F 公司的美国股东的美国合伙人（即 A 及 B 合伙人）将因 P 被视为一外国合伙人组织而被视为对 F 公司有投资，因而有全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的计入，但根据情况，可能可以依全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的规定减少计入的金额。

依新的指导规则，计入的 F 次部分收入及全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的美国税务效果一个持有外国公司股份的美国国内合伙组织，将因该国内合伙人组织被视为外国合伙组织，而依相同方式被视为其为其成员的总和。因此：  A 及 B 合伙人将为 F 公司的美国股东。  A 股东将有 80%的计入。  B 股东将有 11%的计入。  C 合伙人将不成为 F 公司的美国股东。  C 合伙人将没有任何计入。请注意：如果一个真正的外国合伙真正被使用，则将适用总和的方法。

为什么采用新的指导规则？相关利益方对此混合的做法的复杂性的管理问题提出意见。财政部及国税局同意及发布采行新的指导规则的最终全球无形低税收入（GILTI）规则。财政部及国税局也提议将新的指导规则扩大适用于 F 次部分收入的计入，原因如下：1）全球无形低税收入（GILTI）及 F 次部分收入本来就设想一起适用的，2）如果两个制度没有一起协调工作的话，将产生重大复杂性及不确定性问题，且 3)如以不同方式处理的话将使纳税人更难遵守规定及使国税局更难对纳税人进行查核。

新的指导规则的生效日根据其对全球无形低税收入（GILTI）及 F 次部分收入的适用目的，新的指导规则有不同的生效日。

全球无形低税收入（GILTI）的计入  对外国公司于 2017 年 12 月 31 日以后的税务年度适用，且对在该外国公司税务年度之中或结束后的美国股东的税务年度适用。

F 次部分收入的计入  对财政部最终规则中的新的指导规则公布后的外国公司的税务年度适用，而该日将为未来之日。  不过，美国的纳税人（提早适应者）将可选择在 2017 年 12 月 31 日以后的外国公司税务年度、及美国股东的在该外国公司税务年度之中或结束后的税务年度，适用新的指导规则，前提是新的指导规则被国内合伙组织、其美国股东及相关方一致适用。

一些可带走的有用信息  消除了持有少数权益的美国合伙人的全球无形低税收入（GILTI）及 F 次部分收入计入风险。  因为 S 公司被视为为合伙组织。因此，就全球无形低税收入（GILTI）得计入，S 公司依新的指导规则被视为一总和。国税局也要求对新的指导规则沿用于其他通过性实体（例如信托及遗产）的问题征求意见  美国股东及 CFC 的认定是为复杂工作。不要轻忽复杂的直接、间接及推定分配规则，包括新的税改法案的可以直接察觉的向下分配规定。一个有用的做法是将所有权结构以图标方式显示出。  持有少数权益的美国合伙人可能不需课税一事将可能造成依被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款所产生可能的美国税务风险，尤其是被控制的外国公司（CFC）/被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款重合条款部分。  依新的指导规则持有少数权益的美国合伙人可能不需课税一事将进一步造成国内合伙组织及其美国合伙人 2018 年的法规遵循问题，而问题将取决于报税的情况及被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款的可能适用情形。  国税局的国际信息申报要求维持不变。  提起注意在 2019 年 7 月 10 日，国税局依被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款发布拟议规则以澄清：1）被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款的间接所有权条款，2）收入检视及资产检视的适用，及 3）保险例外。美国报税人如有上述潜在被动外国投资公司（PFIC）条款的顾虑的话，应审阅新的指导规则。如需有关执行新的指导规则的信息或协助的话，请与本文作者或我们的税务团队其他成员联系。

依宽泛的所有权界定规则，如美国股东持有超过一外国公司的投票权或价值的 50%时，该外国公司为一 CFC。而美国股东为一依宽泛的所有权界定规则，拥有该外国公司的投票权或价值 10%或以上者。 1

依宽泛的所有权界定规则，如美国股东持有超过一外国公司的投票权或价值的 50%时，该外国公司为一 CFC。而美国股东为一依宽泛的所有权界定规则，拥有该外国公司的投票权或价值 10%或以上者。

Kristin A. DeKuiper is a transactional attorney who has extensive experience with the tax and structuring issues that arise in tax credit transactions. She represents developers, community development entities (CDEs), investors and lenders in transactions nationwide involving low-income housing tax credits, historic tax credits and New Markets Tax Credits. She represents clients in structuring Qualified Opportunity Funds and Opportunity Zone investments, and has worked with clients and industry groups in preparing comments to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS to facilitate the prompt and effective implementation of the Opportunity Zone incentive. Vince Farhat is a partner in Holland & Knight's Los Angeles office and has extensive jury trial experience and focuses his practice on representing companies and individuals in criminal and civil investigations and prosecutions by government enforcement agencies, as well as complex federal litigation. He also advises companies and tribal clients in connection with complex and sensitive internal investigations. Alan Winston Granwell is a tax attorney who focuses on counseling both corporate and private clients. He represents multinational corporations on cross-border planning, transfer pricing, tax controversy and tax compliance. In his private client practice, he advises high-net-worth individuals on cross-border income, estate and gift tax planning, controversy and compliance, to include foreign persons becoming U.S. persons, and U.S. persons moving offshore or expatriating. Mary Elizabeth Hubner concentrates her practice in the areas of business and tax law with a primary focus on transactions financed by the New Markets Tax Credit, low-income housing tax credits and historic rehabilitation tax credits. She has experience representing investors, community development entities (CDEs), lenders and developers, including qualified active low-income community businesses (QALICBs), in a variety of real estate development projects. In addition, she has been involved in the analysis of the Opportunity Zone incentive and has advised clients about whether they can take advantage of the tax incentive. Robert G. Lorndale is a tax attorney who focuses his practice on the federal income taxation of business transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, dispositions, spinoffs and restructurings. He represents clients in diverse industries, such as petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, retailing and numerous others. He also Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

focuses on tax planning for troubled corporations and corporate groups, with an emphasis on consolidated return matters. In addition, he represents clients in tax controversies with the IRS and other tax authorities. Christopher Fiore Marotta is a tax attorney who assists clients with a broad range of domestic and international tax issues, including in relation to the formation of investment funds, drafting United States tax disclosures for private placement memoranda, negotiating and structuring the purchase and sale of businesses, advising insurers on representation and warranty policy coverage, structuring inbound and outbound investment, and other issues relating to mergers, acquisitions and reorganizations. Gwyn O'Flynn is a solicitor who concentrates her practice on aircraft transactional work and the commercial aspects of aviation, including aircraft financing, management, leasing, lease novations, purchases and sales. She advises banks, lessors and operators on finance and leasing issues, as well as maintenance and other aviation supplier companies on commercial contracts. In addition, she handles corporate aircraft work advising private owners in connection with the operation, management, financing, sale and purchase of aircraft. William M. Sharp represents 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-networth clients, including U.S. and foreign-based family offices. He has served as lead counsel with respect to U.S. Tax Court, IRS appeals and examination cases. Sean J. Tevel is a private wealth services attorney who focuses his practice primarily on tax planning for highnet-worth individuals, as well as tax planning for multinational corporate and trust structures. He advises foreign and domestic clients on U.S. federal income, gift and estate tax matters associated with their crossborder investments, including their U.S. real estate investments and business ventures. Stacey Hsiang Chun Wang is a partner in Holland & Knight's Los Angeles office and represents domestic and foreign businesses in complex commercial and intellectual property matters, such as infringement, trade secret theft, product liability, business fraud and unfair competition actions, including defending against advertising/business practice class actions.

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