←
家族財富研究室

一天繞一圈的錢：龐鼎元家族信託的設立日

香港終審法院 2000 年的龐鼎元遺產稅案。設立日一天之內，1.39 億港元從澳門的銀行出發繞家族一圈回到銀行，香港的股份與不動產換成馬恩島的蓋印契據債權；三級法院來回改判，終審五位法官一致確認真實交易不因循環融資而作廢。

約 5 分鐘香港信託案例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、受益人構成，遺產稅是就死亡時移轉的財產課的稅。 沒有的話先讀比較法地圖。

1989 年 12 月，龐鼎元 85 歲，患癌多年。1他名下有紹榮鋼鐵的股份（直接持有加上控股公司持有，當時香港最大的鋼廠），還有兩筆不動產：Hillview 物業，以及鋼廠所在的油塘內地段（判決簡稱 YTIL 物業）。這些財產若留在他名下到過世，會進入他的香港遺產，《遺產稅條例》（第 111 章）第 5 條就死亡時移轉的財產課遺產稅；第 6(1)(c) 條再把死亡前三年內「意在作為生前即時贈與」的處分，也視為死亡時移轉的財產。23

為什麼在這個時點動這些財產，上訴法庭 Godfrey 法官整理過一個兩造沒有爭執的版本：紹榮鋼鐵在香港的營運前景不明，考慮過把部分或全部業務遷往加拿大；1997 年主權移交帶來政治與經濟上的風險，包括可能的外匯管制；再加上遺產稅。法院認定，稅務的理由與非稅務的理由各占一部分。4

十二月搭結構，一月動錢

1989 年 12 月，五個單位信託在馬恩島設立。受託人 Shiu Wing Ltd（判決簡稱 SWL）是同月成立的馬恩島公司，董事是龐太太與七名子女；SWL 的股東是另外兩家馬恩島公司 Shiu Kwong（SKL）與 Futurian。同時為子女設立的全權信託，受託人正是 SKL 與 Futurian 這兩家公司。1

1990 年 1 月 25 日，龐鼎元把股份與 Hillview 物業以市價賣給 SWL：股份對價 65,542,894 港元，Hillview 物業 4,220 萬港元；SWL 也向子女買回他們持有的同批公司股份。問題是 SWL 沒有錢。對價從哪裡來，判決按銀行紀錄一步一步列出來，就是下圖這一圈。5

渣打銀行 澳門 龐太太 SWL 五個單位信託的受託人 龐鼎元 1989 年 12 月時 85 歲 Futurian・SKL 子女信託的受託人 1 借入 1.39 億港元 無擔保、無息 2 轉借給 SWL 3 買入股權與 Hillview 物業 當日對價 107,745,894 港元 4 股款轉借給子女信託的受託人 無息、無擔保的 specialty debts Hillview 價款 4,220 萬港元另以贈與轉入 5 認購五個單位信託的單位 錢回到 SWL 6 SWL 還龐太太 7 龐太太還銀行 這筆債其後免除 1990-01-25 遺囑預為 1991-10、1992-10 契據免除
渣打銀行 澳門 龐太太 SWL 五個單位信託的受託人 龐鼎元 1989 年 12 月時 85 歲 Futurian・SKL 子女信託的受託人 1 借入 1.39 億港元 無擔保、無息 2 轉借給 SWL 3 買入股權與 Hillview 物業 當日對價 107,745,894 港元 4 股款轉借給子女信託的受託人 無息、無擔保的 specialty debts Hillview 價款 4,220 萬港元另以贈與轉入 5 認購五個單位信託的單位 錢回到 SWL 6 SWL 還龐太太 7 龐太太還銀行 這筆債其後免除 1990-01-25 遺囑預為 1991-10、1992-10 契據免除
圖 13.1-1　同一筆 1.39 億港元，1990 年 1 月 25 日一天繞行一圈；同年 10 月 24 日就 YTIL 物業以 1.39 億港元重演一次。實線是錢的移動，虛線是債務免除（法律行為，錢不動）。
Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（2000-07-12 終審判決）

龐太太當天向澳門的渣打銀行借入 1.39 億港元，無擔保、無息。錢轉借給 SWL，SWL 用它支付對價；龐鼎元收到股款後隨即轉借給 SKL 與 Futurian，成為對他負欠的蓋印契據債權（specialty debts），無息、無擔保、隨時可催討；Hillview 的價款 4,220 萬港元則在澳門以贈與轉給兩家受託公司。受託公司拿這些錢向 SWL 認購五個單位信託的單位，錢回到 SWL，SWL 還龐太太，龐太太還銀行。全部發生在同一天。借的是 1.39 億，當日各項移轉的對價合計其實只有 107,745,894 港元，稅務局後來拿這個落差說明整組安排事先排定到什麼程度。10 月 24 日，同一套流程就 YTIL 物業以 1.39 億港元的對價重演一次。6

交易走完，龐鼎元手上不再有香港的股份與不動產，換成了馬恩島的蓋印契據債權，外加一筆已在澳門完成的贈與。債權跟著契據文件落在馬恩島，第 10(b) 條不及於香港以外的財產。7同一天他立了遺囑，寫明這些債權於他過世時免除；1991 年 10 月與 1992 年 10 月，他又分兩批以契據在生前正式免除。8

差三天

龐鼎元 1993 年 1 月 23 日過世，距 1990 年 1 月 25 日差三天滿三年。9稅務局不否認各筆交易真實發生，主張的是 W T Ramsay 案發展出來的解釋原則：這是一組事先排定的合成交易，抽掉專為遺產稅插入的步驟，剩下的就是龐鼎元把香港股份與物業直接贈與七名子女，而生前贈與落在三年之內，全部應稅。10

三級法院的結論來回翻了兩次。一審 Findlay 法官判納稅人勝訴；上訴法庭二比一改判稅務局勝訴，Mortimer 副庭長與 Godfrey 法官是多數，Rogers 法官持不同意見；終審法院 2000 年 7 月 12 日一致恢復一審命令，主筆是梅師賢（Sir Anthony Mason）非常任法官，李國能首席法官與其餘三位都表同意。11

終審法院的兩層理由

第一層順著稅務局的邏輯走：就算 Ramsay 原則適用、循環的資金流可以不看，龐鼎元死亡前三年內以生前即時贈與方式處分的財產，也只有 1991 年與 1992 年免除的蓋印契據債權，加上 1990 年 1 月 25 日在澳門的那筆 4,220 萬港元贈與。兩者都是香港以外的財產，本來就不在遺產稅的課徵範圍。12

第二層再往前：這個案子用不上 Ramsay。烈顯倫常任法官寫，龐太太與銀行之間毫無疑問成立債權債務關係，帳戶進出反映在銀行自己的帳上，「這些交易是真實的，不能被歸類為虛幻」；SWL 買股份用的是真錢。他引一審 Findlay 法官的話：「稅不應該由法院來課；應該說清楚納稅人具體做了什麼，使他負擔這個稅。」13

財產所在地，與居民身分

香港當年的遺產稅按財產所在地課：香港的財產進遺產，香港以外的不進。整個設計改的就是所在地——交易前是香港公司股份與香港不動產，交易後是馬恩島債權與澳門的贈與，家族對鋼廠的控制經過單位信託與全權信託原樣保留。法院確認這條路走得通，前提是每個步驟都真實發生、經得起逐筆指認。香港後來把這個稅整個收掉：2005 年通過廢除條例，2006 年 2 月 11 日起遺產稅停徵，「比較法地圖」一章記過這件事。

第 21 號公告的兩章處理的是同一個入口動作在另一套制度下的位置：財產裝入離岸信託，在大陸2026 年的規則下本身就是視同轉讓的課稅時點，歸屬跟著委託人的居民身分走，不問財產在哪裡，也不問對價有沒有真的付。龐家繞的這一圈，解決的是 1990 年香港法下「這是買賣還是贈與」的問題；在按居民身分歸屬的制度下，同一圈錢改變不了歸屬的結論。

註釋

  1. 1Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 2 至 3In December 1989 Mr Pong Ten Un (“Mr Pong”) was 85 years old and suffering from cancer. He had been ill for some years. In that month 5 unit trusts were set up in the Isle of Man. The sole trustee of those unit trusts was a Manx company incorporated in the same month called Shiu Wing Ltd (“SWL”). The directors of SWL were Mr Pong’s wife (“Mrs Pong”) and his 7 children ⋯⋯ At about the same time discretionary trusts were set up in the Isle of Man for the benefit of the children; the trustees of those discretionary trusts were Shiu Kwong Ltd and Futurian LtdSWL 的股東就是 Shiu Kwong 與 Futurian 兩家馬恩島公司，前者的董事是四名兒子，後者的董事是龐太太與另外三名子女。原文
  2. 2Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 3At that time (December 1989) Mr Pong owned properties in Hong Kong which, upon his death, would have passed to his Hong Kong estate and would have attracted estate duty under s.5 of the Estate Duty Ordinance, Cap. 111. ⋯⋯ shares in various Hong Kong private companies, in particular shares in Shiu Wing Steel Ltd (held directly and through a holding company) which operated the largest steel mill in Hong Kong; and ⋯⋯ real estate : (a) a property called the Hillview property and (b) Yau Tong Inland Lot No. 4 (“the YTIL property”) where the steel mill was located.紹榮鋼鐵當時經營香港最大的鋼廠；YTIL 就是鋼廠所在的油塘內地段第 4 號。原文
  3. 3Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 3… taken under a disposition made by him, purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, which shall not have been bona fide made 3 years before the death ….《遺產稅條例》（第 111 章）第 6(1)(c) 條的原文，把死亡前三年內的生前贈與視為死亡時移轉的財產。原文
  4. 4Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 3 至 4There was uncertainty as to the future of the commercial operations in Hong Kong of Shiu Wing Steel Limited; including a possibility of the transfer of some or all of its operations to Canada; there was uncertainty as to the political and economic risks (including possible exchange control measures) attendant on the resumption in 1997 by the People’s Republic of China of sovereignty over Hong Kong; and there were others. ⋯⋯ His motives were mixed; his reasons for acting as he did were partly fiscal and partly non-fiscal.上訴法庭 Godfrey 法官整理的動機認定，終審判決照錄，兩造對此沒有爭執。原文
  5. 5Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 23 至 24(1) the mother borrowed $139,000,000 by way of unsecured loan from a bank; (2) she lent the money (other than that required for the YTIL transaction) to SWL in its capacity as sole trustee of the Unit Trusts; (3) SWL used part of the money to provide consideration for the transfer by the deceased to SWL of the SWSL shares ⋯⋯ and the Hillview property; SWL used the balance of the money to acquire from the deceased’s children shares held by them in the same companies; (4) the deceased then lent the money representing the consideration for the shares to Futurian and SKL ⋯⋯ the loans giving rise to specialty debts owing to him, the debts being repayable on demand, free of interest, without security and the right of repayment being personal to the deceased; (5) the deceased then transferred $42,200,000 (being the consideration for the Hillview property) by way of gift to Futurian and SKL in their capacity as joint trustees of the Pong Ding Yuen Trust; (6) Futurian and SKL then used the money to pay SWL for units in the 5 unit trusts; (7) SWL then used the money to repay the mother the money which the mother had earlier transferred to it; (8) the mother then repaid the money to the bank.判決把每一輪循環總結成七段路線：銀行到龐太太、龐太太到 SWL、SWL 到龐鼎元（或子女）、龐鼎元或子女到 Futurian 或 SKL、Futurian 或 SKL 回到 SWL、SWL 回到龐太太、龐太太回到銀行。圖上畫的就是這七段。原文
  6. 6Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 7On 25 January Mrs Pong borrowed $139m from the Standard Chartered Bank in Macau. This was unsecured. No interest was paid. ⋯⋯ What the bank statements reveal is that for each transaction one complete cycle of money movements was used : from Mrs Pong, and then back to Mrs Pong ⋯⋯ It all happened on the same day. Although Mrs Pong borrowed $139m on 25 January, in fact the total consideration for the various transactions on that day (the transfer of the shares and the Hillview property) came to only $107,745,894這一段是稅務局的事實整理：借款額與當日對價的落差，被拿來說明整組安排的人為程度。原文
  7. 7Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 6 至 7Mr Pong would have divested himself of his ownership in the YTIL property upon sale to SWL and would have acquired specialty debts located in the Isle of Man : No estate duty would have been payable in respect of these specialty debts upon his death : see s.10(b).蓋印契據債權（specialty debt）的所在地跟著契據文件走，這批契據在馬恩島；《遺產稅條例》第 10(b) 條不及於香港以外的財產。原文
  8. 8Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 7 至 8on 25 January 1990 Mr Pong made a will in which he forgave the specialty debts owed by the discretionary trustees at his death; then in October 1991 he formally released the first lot of specialty debts (created in January 1990) and in October 1992 he released the further specialty debts created on the transfer of the YTIL property.免除分三次：設立日的遺囑先寫「於死亡時免除」，之後兩年各以契據生前正式免除一批。原文
  9. 9Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 7Since he died, unfortunately, on 23 January 1993, three days short of the 3 years provided for in s.6(1)(c), all the shares and properties became assessable to estate duty.這句是稅務局主張的表述：若一月的處分實質上是贈與，距三年期間屆滿尚差三日，股份與物業全部應稅。原文
  10. 10Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 7 至 8The Estate Duty Commissioner does not challenge the genuiness of the transactions, as summarized above, and accepts that they did in fact take place. ⋯⋯ There were, on 25 January and 24 October, composite transactions which were pre-ordained; estate-duty-driven steps were inserted which, if disregarded, would show that, on 25 January and 24 October, Mr Pong had simply made immediate gifts of his Hong Kong shares and properties to his seven children稅務局引的是 W T Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1982] AC 300 發展出來的解釋原則：事先排定的合成交易，抽掉專為稅捐插入的步驟後，按整體的實質定性。原文
  11. 11Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 2They seek a discharge of the order of the Court of Appeal made on 20 August 1999 (Mortimer VP and Godfrey JA, Rogers JA dissenting) and a restoration of the order of the trial judge Findlay J whereby he declared that certain dispositions of property made by a deceased within 3 years of his death fell outside the charge to estate duty.合議庭五位：李國能首席法官、烈顯倫與包致金常任法官、Silke 與梅師賢（Sir Anthony Mason）兩位非常任法官。主筆是梅師賢，其餘四位都表同意。原文
  12. 12Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 17The properties which the deceased disposed of within 3 years of his death, by way of immediate gift inter vivos, were (a) the specialty debts released in October 1991 and October 1992 and (b) the gift of $42.2m in Macau on 25 January 1990. They fall outside the charge to estate duty. Even if the Ramsay principle of construction were to apply, to the extent that the circular movement of money had to be disregarded, the dispositions were still of foreign property, for the reasons set out earlier, and therefore outside the charge.烈顯倫常任法官判詞裡「法律狀態很簡單」的那一段。原文
  13. 13Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日），頁 16Between Mrs. Pong and the bank, a relationship of debtor and creditor was undoubtedly created. ⋯⋯ Those transactions were real. They cannot be categorised as illusory. ⋯⋯ As Findlay J at first instance remarked : “A tax should not be imposed by the courts; it should be made clear what it is specifically that the taxpayer did that renders him liable to the tax.”烈顯倫常任法官的判詞，結尾引一審 Findlay 法官的話。原文

出處

  1. Shiu Wing Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Estate Duty, FACV 17/1999（香港終審法院，2000 年 7 月 12 日）——龐鼎元遺產稅案終審判決全文 50 頁；一審 Findlay 法官判納稅人勝訴，上訴法庭二比一改判，終審五位法官一致恢復一審命令
  2. 香港稅務局：遺產稅廢除新聞稿——Revenue (Abolition of Estate Duty) Ordinance 2005，2006 年 2 月 11 日起完全停徵