←
家族財富研究室

跨境信託所得：這筆錢算誰的

同一筆信託所得，一國可以歸給委託人、歸給受益人，或歸給信託自己。Brabazon 把澳洲、紐西蘭、英國、美國四國的設定並排，雙重課稅與雙重不課稅都是從這些歸屬規則的錯位長出來的。

約 10 分鐘比較法稅跨境2筆出處
全部章節

讀這一章之前，預設你已經知道信託由委託人、受託人、受益人三方構成，也知道一國課稅通常按居住地與所得來源地兩條線主張。 沒有的話先讀比較法地圖。

受託人全部設在美國，設立這個信託的人另外給了某個非美國人一項否決權，範圍限於某一類重大決定。這樣一個安排，英國看它是非居民，因為受託人沒有一個在英國；美國也看它是非居民，因為實質決定的控制權沒有全部落在美國人手上；澳洲同樣不當它是居民，單單一項否決權構不成中央管理與控制在澳洲。所得留在信託裡不分配，三個國家都不按全球所得課它。Brabazon 給這種信託的名字是 fiscally homeless，在稅上無家可歸。1

四套規則單獨看每一套都說得通。並排之後才看得見那個洞，而看得見它的前提是先有一個共同的問法。Brabazon 那本 2019 年劍橋的《International Taxation of Trust Income》寫的就是這個問法，副標題叫 Principles, Planning and Design，比較的對象是澳洲、紐西蘭、英國、美國四國，最後一章的標題是 Taxing the Shadow。2

這筆錢算誰的

所得稅可以理解成對所得課的稅，也可以理解成按一個人的所得對這個人課的稅。3後面這個理解逼出一個前置問題：課稅的人格主體與課稅的客體之間，那條連結是什麼。Brabazon 用的詞是財政歸屬（fiscal attribution）。

Fiscal attribution is the connection between a personal subject and an impersonal object of taxation.4

只要一國採累進稅率、或者對個人與公司分開設計稅率、或者按居住地與來源地主張課稅權，它就必須有辦法說出某一筆所得算在誰頭上——那個人的身分與居住地決定適用哪一套待遇。5信託把這個問題變難，因為信託財產的受益歸屬本來就可能懸而未決：委託人可能已經死亡，所得也可能還沒指定給任何一個受益人。6

歸屬規則在各國法律裡的長相不一，有的明寫，有的要從整部法推出來，散落在不同章節。通常一筆所得歸給了某個納稅人，就不會同時歸給另一個，反避稅與反遞延的條文則是例外——它可能讓某個人先負主要納稅義務，同時沒有明白排除同一筆所得對別人的歸屬。7

三個候選答案

假設有一國承認信託、也打算從一張白紙開始設計信託課稅，它會同時面對三個問題：誰在稅上算取得了信託的所得、信託本身在多大程度上該當一個納稅主體（比照公司）、信託的分配在多大程度上本身就是一筆所得（比照股利）。8第一個問題的候選答案只有三個：

There are three potential answers to the first question: the grantor, the beneficiaries and the trust.9

選委託人的理由，Brabazon 用的比喻是一份慢動作的贈與：在這份贈與充分移入受益人的事實上所有與控制之前，或者充分移出委託人的事實上所有與控制之前，這一國可以繼續把委託人當成所有權人。移入與移出這兩件事不必然同時發生。10選受益人的理由是所得終究由受益人享受，那就把他們當成真正的財政所有權人。委託人已經死亡、或者所得還沒歸屬到任何一個受益人身上時，剩下的兩條路是課信託本身，或者等著看財產最後分配給誰。11

當期課稅與非當期課稅

信託的課稅問題習慣按設立、存續、分配三個時點問。Brabazon 的分法只有兩個：信託層取得所得的那一刻，以及分配給受益人的那一刻。12前者他叫當期課稅（current taxation），當期歸屬的對象可以是委託人、某個受益人，或信託這個實體；後者叫非當期課稅（non-current taxation），指不以信託層當期取得所得為必要而對分配課的稅，即使那筆稅剛好落在信託取得所得的同一年。13

非當期課稅要先定義它的經濟客體，而 Brabazon 把這件事寫成幾個連著問的問題：課的是分配這件事本身嗎？還是分配裡由先前信託所得支撐的那一部分？如果是後者，那筆信託所得先前有沒有在別國被課過，要不要納入考慮？受益人手上這筆錢是不是定期給付，重不重要？各國的答案不同，客體的定性跟著不同。14設立那一刻在他的框架裡沒有獨立地位，因為所得稅問的是所得歸誰，而設立本身移轉的是財產。大陸第 21 號公告把裝入財產的那一刻定性為財產轉讓所得，才讓「設立」在所得稅裡有了一個位置。

信託的居住地，四國四種答案

四國都主張居民按全球所得課稅、非居民只按來源地課稅，也都給居民外國稅額扣抵。15要把這套架構套到信託上，就需要一個功能上等同於自然人居住地的判準。16四國的判準與條文並排如下。17

表 12.4-1
法域 判準 條文
澳洲 任何一個受託人是稅上居民，或信託的中央管理與控制在澳洲 ITAA 1936 s 95(2)、ITAA 1997 s 995-1
美國 美國法院能對信託的行政行使主要監督，且美國人有權控制信託的所有實質決定 IRC s 7701(a)(30)(E)
英國 受託人全體為英國居民則信託為居民，全體非居民則非居民；居住地混合時，看委託人在設立時（遺囑信託則為死亡時）是否為英國居民或在英國有住所 ITA UK s 476、TCGA s 69(2B)、(2C)
紐西蘭 沒有信託居住地這個概念，判準是委託人當年度是否為紐西蘭居民 ITA NZ s HC 25(2)

判準有多容易操作

同一張表按這個問題重讀一次。美國那條的效果是刻意偏向外國身分：把某一類實質決定的否決權交給一個外國居民，即使信託的準據法、財產、行政與受益人全部在美國境內，這個信託在美國稅上照樣是外國信託。18澳洲的判準訂於 1979 年，當時澳洲沒有任何有效的委託人歸屬規則，寬鬆的居住地定義本身就是護住稅基的措施；19近年稅務局在公司的中央管理與控制爭點上有幾件勝訴案件，用一個聽話的境外受託人就把信託搬出澳洲，沒有從前想的那麼容易。20

紐西蘭的另一條路

紐西蘭的判準掛在委託人的居住地上，法律裡根本沒有信託居住地這個名詞。Brabazon 對這件事的概括值得整句抄下來：

What other countries achieve by grantor attribution, New Zealand does by functional trust residence.21

這個判準比其他三國都更客觀、更難操縱。它帶來的規避機會來自另一頭：外國委託人把外國資產交給紐西蘭的受託人，紐西蘭不主張課稅，而如果委託人所在國不知情、或者根本沒有委託人歸屬規則與信託居住地規則，那筆所得在兩邊都沒有著落。22

錯位往兩個方向長

歸屬規則對不上，結果分兩種：雙重課稅，或者兩邊都不課。

雙重課稅

  • 委託人的居住地國、受益人的居住地國、信託的居住地國，其中兩個以上各自把同一筆所得歸給自己的居民，就形成居住地之間的歸屬衝突。要解開它，其中一國得讓出優先權，而現行的條約救濟範圍很有限，23國際上也還沒有發展出替這幾種課稅主張排優先順序的明確原則。24
  • 信託實體的居住地判準各國差異大，同一個信託被兩國都認定為居民的情形跟著出現。25
  • 一國對信託層所得課稅、另一國對相應的分配課稅，形成經濟上的雙重課稅。受益人所在國願不願意就先前那筆外國稅給任何減免，是單方面的事，條約在這一段通常不給救濟。26
  • 信託所在國對信託層的外國所得給了外國稅額扣抵，該筆所得隨後分配給同一國的受益人並被課稅時，先前那筆扣抵的效果被沖掉。27

雙重不課稅

無家可歸的信託是第一種，開頭那個例子就是。28第二種 Brabazon 叫負向歸屬衝突：可能按居住地課稅的那幾國，各自把同一筆所得歸給不同的人，而每一個都是該國的非居民。29他舉的例子可以直接驗算。紐西蘭的委託人設立一個符合美國外國委託人歸屬要件的信託，信託在避稅港取得所得，並當期分配給美國居民的受益人；紐西蘭把所得歸給受益人，美國把所得歸給委託人；兩國都不課，因為在各自眼裡這都是一筆歸屬於非居民的外國所得。30

第三種是分配環節的空隙。所得已經歸給了一個無家可歸的信託、或者歸給了住在別國的受益人或委託人，剩下唯一可能的課稅點就是分配；如果受益人所在國不把來自這個信託的分配當成受益人的所得，而分配背後的信託所得未被課稅或只被輕課，全球不課稅在受益人手上就完成了。31

雙重課稅的風險通常當事人自己看得見，所以最有效的辦法是自助——在設計信託時預先規劃，或者更換投資標的、受託人與受益人。32這句話的另一面是：看不見風險的人，以及因為移民、死亡這類事件而讓原本對得上的規則突然錯位的人，才是真正被雙重課稅打到的人。

三個時點的表怎麼填

三個時點的比較表要能填，每一格得先回答兩件事：這一國把這筆所得歸給誰，以及它憑什麼主張課稅權。單問「這一國課不課」填不出來，因為同一格的答案會隨著委託人在哪、受益人在哪而改變。

大陸第 21 號公告把居民個人裝入財產的離岸信託在存續期間的收益，無論是否實際分配，都以該居民個人為納稅人按年申報，33用 Brabazon 的詞就是委託人歸屬加上當期課稅；已按年課過的收益在實際分配時不再課，非當期課稅在這套制度裡等於不存在。信託本身在大陸稅法上沒有取得納稅主體的地位，公告走的是穿透到委託人的路。同一份公告第 4 條第 1 款那半句「及該離岸信託持有、控制、管理的境外實體」，處理的是本章沒有展開的另一題：歸屬要穿透幾層。

四國那張表也提醒了一件事：判準寫在法條裡，操作空間就在法條裡。美國那條容易做成外國信託，英國那條由受託人的居住地組合決定、混合時再回頭看委託人，34澳洲那條看中央管理與控制的實際位置——這些差異決定了同一個結構在不同國家會被歸到哪裡，而它們本身都不是反避稅條款。

註釋

  1. 1Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.3 註 368For example, it may have all US trustees (and thus be UK non-resident), but reserve a right of veto over some significant class of decision to a non-US person (thus US non-resident). ⋯⋯ The trust would also ordinarily be Australian non-resident: a mere right of veto, even belonging to an Australian resident, would not without more establish central management and control in Australia.原文接著說，持有否決權的人可以是委託人，也可以掛保護人、指定權人之類的頭銜，或者根本沒有頭銜。原文
  2. 2Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，封底簡介；第 9 章標題見目次Covering the international tax settings of Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, and their taxation of grantors/settlors, beneficiaries, trusts and trust distributions, the book identifies a set of principles and corresponding tax settings that countries may apply to cross-border income derived by, through or from a trust.副標題 Principles, Planning and Design 與第 9 章標題 Conclusions and Proposals: Taxing the Shadow 出自書名頁與目次。本書以作者的雪梨大學博士論文為基礎。原文
  3. 3Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4An income tax can be conceived as a tax on income and, with equal validity, as a tax on persons with reference to their income.原文
  4. 4Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4Fiscal attribution is the connection between a personal subject and an impersonal object of taxation.原文緊接著說明，課稅的人格主體可以是自然人、法人，也可以是純粹為稅法目的而設想的財政主體——在稅法之外不具法人格，或者與任何一個法律上會被承認的主體不完全對應。原文
  5. 5Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4If a country taxes on a progressive basis or differentiates between classes of taxpayers such as individuals and companies, or if it exerts its international claim to tax on a conventional residence/source basis, it needs to be able to allocate particular items of income to a person or entity by reference to whose characteristics or residence the applicable tax treatment is determined.原文接著補一句：歸屬指出的是誰在稅上對這筆所得負責，即使實際繳納的義務落在別處（例如扣繳義務人）。原文
  6. 6Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.1the structure of trust taxation responds to the particular characteristics of the donative trust, including the separate role of the grantor and the potential indeterminacy of beneficial ownership of trust assets and income.donative trust 指生前信託或遺囑設立的贈與型信託，Brabazon 說它是信託課稅的共同核心地帶（common heartland）。原文
  7. 7Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4A country's rules of fiscal attribution may be explicit or implied, and may be clearly structured or scattered through its legislation. Usually, attribution of income to one taxpayer implies that the same item of income is not attributed to any other taxpayer except in a representative capacity, but that is not always the case.原文把例外稱為間接歸屬（indirect attribution），並以英國的 transfer of assets abroad 規則為例：條文寫的是把「相當於境外之人所得金額」的一筆數額視為居民個人的所得，而非該境外之人的所得本身。原文
  8. 8Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.1It is immediately confronted by a set of interrelated questions: who should be regarded for tax purposes as deriving the income of the trust, to what extent should the trust itself be regarded as a proper taxpayer (by analogy with a company), and to what extent should distributions from the trust be regarded as income in itself (by analogy with corporate dividends)?這一段的設定是一國承認信託、要從一張白紙開始設計信託課稅，不受歷史拘束。原文
  9. 9Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.1There are three potential answers to the first question: the grantor, the beneficiaries and the trust.原文
  10. 10Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.1Using the analogy of a slow-moving gift, the country may say that the grantor should be treated as the owner until the gift has sufficiently passed into the de facto ownership and control of the beneficiaries, or out of the de facto ownership and control of the grantor (which is not necessarily the same thing).該處註 30 提到信託史上很早就有過類似構想：Gregory XI 主張把 feoffee to uses（受託人）當成財產贈與人的代理人，出處是梅特蘭 1894 年〈The Origin of Uses〉。原文
  11. 11Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.1Alternatively, the country may be more impressed by the fact that the income from the trust property is to be enjoyed by the beneficiaries, in which case it will want to tax them and will see them as the proper fiscal owners. But the grantor may be dead, or the trust may have income that is not clearly earmarked for any beneficiary. That raises the question of whether the trust should be taxed or whether one should wait and see to whom the trust property is distributed.原文
  12. 12Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4Trust-related income may be taxed at either or both of two points: its derivation by the trust and its distribution to a beneficiary.原文
  13. 13Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4Taxation of trust income by reference to trust-level derivation and as income of the tax period in which it is so derived may be referred to as current taxation. The person to whom the income is currently attributed – i.e., attributed for the purpose of current taxation – may be the grantor, a beneficiary or the trust entity.非當期課稅的定義在同一段下文：It will be convenient to refer to tax that is imposed on distributions otherwise than by necessary reference to current trust-level derivation of income as non-current taxation, even if the tax happens to be imposed in the year when the trust derives income that supports the distribution.原文
  14. 14Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§1.3.4Is the taxable object the distribution as such? Is it so much of the distribution as is supported by earlier trust income and, if so, does it matter whether that income has borne taxation by the same or another country? Are characteristics of the distribution in the hands of the beneficiary, such as periodicity, important? Different countries make different choices and characterize the object of non-current taxation differently.原文
  15. 15Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2Income of a resident is taxable on a worldwide basis. Residents are entitled to double tax relief by foreign tax credit. Income of a non-resident is only taxable on a source basis.原文以項目符號列出四國國際課稅主張的共同特徵，另兩項是非居民的股利、利息、權利金原則上以就源扣繳為最終稅負（與當地常設機構有足夠連結者除外），以及非居民的資本利得按較有限的準來源地判準課稅。美國另有以公民身分為由的全球課稅，英國在部分情形放寬為匯入制。原文
  16. 16Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2This requires a criterion that is functionally equivalent to the residence of a natural person.原文補充：這個判準不必叫做「居住地」，但用這個詞方便也習慣；任何非自然人都沒有真正的居住地，那是實證法造出來的概念。原文
  17. 17Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.1（澳洲）、§4.2.2（美國）、§4.2.3（英國）、§4.2.4（紐西蘭）In most situations, fiscal residence of any trustee or central management and control of the trust in Australia qualifies the trust for fiscal residence.表中四列各自的原文與條文出處：澳洲 §4.2.1（ITAA 1936 s 95(2)、ITAA 1997 s 995-1，單位信託另有定義）、美國 §4.2.2（IRC s 7701(a)(30)(E)）、英國 §4.2.3（ITA UK s 476；TCGA s 69(2B)、(2C)）、紐西蘭 §4.2.4（ITA NZ s HC 25(2)，並受 s HC 25(4)、(5)(a) 與 ss HC 29、HC 33 限定）。原文
  18. 18Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.2It is relatively easy to ensure that a trust has foreign status, such as by giving a foreign resident a veto over just one class of substantial decision, even if all its other connections – its proper law, assets, administration and beneficiaries – are in the United States. The rule deliberately creates a bias in favour of foreignness and enables those associated with a US-based trust to ensure that it is foreign.Brabazon 同時指出，取得美國居民信託的身分可能反而是當事人要的，因為它排除了 IRC s 679 那種專門針對境外信託的委託人課稅風險。原文
  19. 19Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.1The broad residence test dates from a time when Australia had no effective grantor attribution rule and may be seen as a measure to protect the national tax base.該處註 262 寫明定義訂於 1979 年，當時澳洲沒有專門針對境外的委託人規則。原文
  20. 20Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.1The Commissioner has recently had some success in establishing central management and control of companies in Australia despite their ostensible management abroad. This suggests that trust residence may not be avoided so easily as used to be thought possible by the largely formal device of employing a compliant and perhaps related offshore trustee.原文對照的兩件是 Bywater Investments Ltd v FCT (2016) 260 CLR 169 與 Esquire Nominees Ltd v FCT (1973) 129 CLR 177。本書 2019 年出版，這一段的「近年」以該時點為準。原文
  21. 21Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.4What other countries achieve by grantor attribution, New Zealand does by functional trust residence.紐西蘭稅法沒有信託居住地這個概念，Brabazon 把 ITA NZ s HC 25(2) 那組要件稱為 settlor nexus，功能上等同於信託居住地。受託人在境外難以課稅的問題，紐西蘭的處理是讓居民委託人以信託實體的擬制代理人身分負責，並給他法定的求償權。原文
  22. 22Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.4It has nevertheless given rise to international avoidance opportunities insofar as a foreign grantor may transfer foreign assets, often in a third country, to New Zealand trustees without attracting a New Zealand claim to tax resulting income and, if the grantor's country does not find out about the arrangement or does not have a rule of grantor taxation or trust residence that claims to tax the trust income, without tax in that country.Brabazon 說這個結果來自各國規則之間的錯位與紐西蘭歷來較弱的揭露與申報規則，規則本身並不易被操縱。原文
  23. 23Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.2Residence–residence attribution conflict: Double taxation may arise by conflict of attribution among the residence countries of the grantor, a beneficiary and the trust itself. If two or more of those countries each attribute the same trust income to its own resident, there are overlapping claims of residence-based taxation. ⋯⋯ The present scope of treaty relief is very limited (Section 8.3.13).原文
  24. 24Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.2Clear international principles for prioritizing such taxing claims have not yet been developed, although the seed of such development may be present.原文
  25. 25Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.2Dual residence: Double taxation may arise by conflict (duality) of fiscal residence, particularly of the trust entity. There are significant differences in the trust residence criteria of different tax systems.原文
  26. 26Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.2Two-layered assessment: One country may tax a trust (or perhaps a grantor) on trust income on a source or residence basis, at a high substantive rate, and a beneficiary's country may separately tax a corresponding distribution. The result is economic double taxation. Double tax relief depends on what recognition, if any, the beneficiary's country allows unilaterally for earlier foreign taxation of underlying trust income (Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.3). Treaties generally provide no relief (Section 8.4).原文
  27. 27Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.2Washout: If a trust residence country attributes foreign income that has been taxed at source to the trust, double tax relief obtained by the trust may be washed out on subsequent taxable distribution to a beneficiary in the same country as the trust.該處註 367 指出這個問題只在分配本身也被課稅時才發生，並以英國受益人為例（§5.3.3）。原文
  28. 28Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.3Homeless trust: Income may escape current taxation (other than purely on a source basis) if it is accumulated in a trust that no country claims to tax on a worldwide basis and no country attributes the income to a resident beneficiary or grantor.Brabazon 說這是雙重居住地的反面，而且信託比自然人或公司更容易做出這種負向衝突，原因在信託居住地規則本身的性質與各國差異。原文
  29. 29Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.3Negative attribution conflict: Trust income may also escape current taxation (other than purely on a source basis) if the countries that could plausibly tax on a residence basis all attribute the income in question to different persons or entities, each being a non-resident of the country concerned.原文把這種情形下的信託稱為 reverse hybrid，並指出來源地課稅輕或不存在時，這些空隙會被放大——這不限於避稅港，許多國家對非居民的被動投資所得本來就課得輕。原文
  30. 30Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§2.6For example, a New Zealand grantor capitalizes a trust on terms that qualify for US foreign grantor attribution; the trust derives income in a tax haven; it currently distributes the income to US-resident beneficiaries. New Zealand attributes the income to the beneficiaries; the United States attributes it to the grantor. Neither claims to tax because it is foreign income attributed to a non-resident.Brabazon 強調這幾個例子取自稅法與信託法都成熟、而且對委託人的稅務處理都做過細緻設計的國家；規則沒有這麼細的地方，雙重課稅與不課稅的空間只會更大。原文
  31. 31Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.3Distribution tax lacuna: If income is attributed to a homeless trust or if the country of trust residence attributes the income to a beneficiary or grantor who is resident elsewhere, the only remaining potential taxing point is the distribution from the trust to a beneficiary. If the beneficiary's residence country does not see a distribution from the particular trust as income of the beneficiary and the distribution is supported by untaxed or lightly taxed trust income, global non-taxation or less-than-single taxation is perfected in the hands of the beneficiary.原文
  32. 32Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§6.2The risk of international double taxation is usually, though not always, obvious to the participants in a trust. Self-help is consequently the most effective means of avoiding double taxation, whether by pre-planning in the design of a trust, or by careful selection or change of its investments, trustees or beneficiaries.原文接著說，自助的可行性削弱了雙重課稅在國際稅政策上的份量，但仍有人會因為意外、不幸或事後發生的事件而遭遇雙重課稅。原文
  33. 33財政部 稅務總局公告 2026 年第 21 號《關於離岸信託個人所得稅有關事項的公告》（國家稅務總局政策法規庫，2026 年 7 月 24 日），第 4 條第 1 款居民個人裝入財產的離岸信託（以下簡稱居民個人離岸信託）及該離岸信託持有、控制、管理的境外實體，在存續期間產生的收益，無論是否實際分配，均以該居民個人為納稅人，按照「財產轉讓所得」或「利息、股息、紅利所得」，按年申報繳納個人所得稅。居民個人已按規定申報繳納個人所得稅的信託收益，在實際分配時不再申報繳納個人所得稅。逐條解讀見〈2026 年離岸信託新規〉那一章。原文
  34. 34Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)，§4.2.3If all trustees are themselves UK resident, the trust entity is fiscally resident; if they are all non-resident, the entity is non-resident. ⋯⋯ If the trustees have mixed residence, they are collectively resident only if a grantor (settlor) meets a further condition.該條件是：遺囑信託等因委託人死亡而成立的，看他死亡時是否為英國居民或在英國有住所；其餘情形看設立當時。以英國分公司營業的專業受託人視為英國居民。原文

出處

  1. Mark Brabazon, International Taxation of Trust Income: Principles, Planning and Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tax Law, 2019)——比較澳洲、紐西蘭、英國、美國四國的信託所得課稅設定；以作者的雪梨大學博士論文為基礎
  2. 財政部 稅務總局公告 2026 年第 21 號《關於離岸信託個人所得稅有關事項的公告》（國家稅務總局政策法規庫，2026 年 7 月 24 日）——2026 年 7 月 24 日發布，自發布之日起實施