A comparison of Jersey foundations and trusts
泽西岛基金会与信托比较
Here, Carey Olsen counsel Rachel Yao examines the effectiveness of trusts or foundations in securing the long-term financial positions of high-net-worth families in Asia after the introduction of the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009.
随着《2009年基金会(泽西岛)法》的颁布,亚洲的许多高净值家庭都在审慎衡量信托和基金会的各自优势,以期找到最佳的财富传承工具。
Since the enactment of the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009, legal practitioners have diligently assessed the real-world ramifications of this legislation concerning clients. This scrutiny concerns distinctions between foundations and trusts, with the aim of determining the most suitable vehicle to address each client’s unique requirements.
Lately, the author has witnessed a notable surge in inquiries originating from high-net-worth families from Asia regarding the choice between Jersey trusts and Jersey foundations, particularly when philanthropic objectives are at the forefront.
Trusts have a longer history, serving as integral tools in the realms of succession, wealth management and philanthropy. Meanwhile, foundations are relatively new within common law jurisdictions like Jersey and have emerged as increasingly popular instruments for both succession planning and philanthropic endeavours.
However, foundations have also been used for the same purpose in civil law jurisdictions since the Middle Ages. In the discourse of estate planning, pertinent questions often arise: Is there a clear preference between trusts and foundations? Which one should individuals opt for? This article aims to shed light on the distinctions between trusts and foundations, providing insights into the scenarios where one might be more advantageous than the other.
Trusts: An overview
The concept of a trust has been an integral part of common law jurisdictions since the 12th century. A trust materialises when the legal owner of assets, known as the settlor, transfers the legal ownership of those assets, forming the trust property, to designated individuals or a corporate entity, known as the trustee. This transfer typically aims to benefit specific persons known as beneficiaries.
Once a trust is established, legal ownership of the trust property vests in the trustee, while beneficial ownership belongs to the beneficiaries. A trust, therefore, isn’t a distinct legal entity; it’s a relationship.
Trusts can take various forms, with those established for the benefit of beneficiaries being the most common. However, trusts can also serve charitable or non-charitable purposes and may not necessarily have beneficiaries.
Foundations: An overview
Foundations are a less familiar concept compared to trusts and are sometimes described as a blend of a trust and a company. In essence, a foundation exhibits corporate characteristics, possessing a separate legal personality, albeit without shareholders, and holding its property independently, like a company.
A foundation operates under the governance of a council, guided by its charter and regulations (its constitutional documents), similar to how a company adheres to the oversight of its board of directors, governed by its constitutional documents.
In certain respects, foundations share similarities with trusts. Like a trust, a foundation has a founder who contributes property to be held by the foundation, analogous to a settlor providing property to be managed in line with trust terms. Also, like trusts, a foundation must define one or more objects, which may include a purpose, whether charitable or not, and/or the benefit of one or more beneficiaries.
It is crucial to note that foundations lack beneficial owners, rendering them “ownerless” structures, even when the foundation property is intended to benefit the beneficiaries.
Common features
Flexibility. Both trusts and foundations offer remarkable flexibility. They can both operate on a discretionary basis, permitting the trustee/council to determine which beneficiaries will receive benefits, when, under what conditions, and more. Additionally, third parties may be appointed to oversee and monitor the trustee/council in their management of trust/foundation assets, often with protectors overseeing trusts and guardians overseeing foundations.
Settlors, particularly those with substantial wealth, may opt to establish private trust companies (PTCs) to serve as trustees for family trusts. This approach allows settlors to appoint themselves or family members to PTC boards, offering an alternative avenue for family participation in trust administration, compared to protectors or reserved powers. Increasingly, foundations are also being employed in a similar fashion to act as trustees (referred to as private trust foundations) for family trusts.
Unlimited duration. Both Jersey trusts and foundations can be established with an unlimited duration, making them ideal for dynastic private wealth structures designed to preserve family wealth across generations.
Privacy. In the case of trusts, there are no requirements for registration or public disclosure of trust-related documents or information, ensuring complete confidentiality. While some limited information about foundations may be publicly available, there is typically no obligation to disclose the identity of the founder and beneficiaries, or the foundation’s objectives. Consequently, both trusts and foundations can maintain a high degree of privacy.
Benefits of trusts
There are specific scenarios where trusts may be favoured over foundations.
Ease of establishment. Trusts are relatively straightforward to establish. A valid trust is formed when the settlor’s intention and the trustee’s commitment to create a trust, the designated trust property and the trust’s objects (beneficiaries or purposes) are sufficiently defined. A trust may be created on the transfer of the initial trust property from the settlor to the trustee. While trusts do not require written documentation, it is typically advisable.
Legal precedent. Trusts are widely recognised and have a longstanding presence in most common law jurisdictions. Their extensive history has led to a robust body of trust law and established case law, providing a level of predictability and security. Jurisdictions like Jersey have implemented “firewall” legislation to safeguard trusts against foreign jurisdictional challenges, further enhancing trust reliability.
Tax treatment. In most jurisdictions, the tax treatment of trusts is well established, offering clarity and predictability. In contrast, foundations, being a newer concept, may face more ambiguity in certain jurisdictions, potentially making trusts a more appealing choice for some families.
Benefits of foundations
Foundations also have their merits and may be preferable in certain contexts.
Civil law jurisdictions. Foundations can be an attractive alternative to trusts, especially for individuals from civil law jurisdictions where the trust concept (i.e. the separation of legal and beneficial ownership) is unfamiliar or not permitted by law.
Separate legal personality. Foundations possess separate legal personality, enabling them to hold both legal and beneficial titles to their property. This autonomy allows foundations to enter into contracts directly with third parties, a distinction from trusts where the trustee, rather than the trust itself, enters into contracts. Additionally, foundations are increasingly used for philanthropic endeavours, especially in jurisdictions that do not recognise trusts.
Enhanced privacy. Foundation regulations can be crafted to eliminate the requirement for beneficiaries to receive information about the foundation. This offers a higher level of confidentiality compared to trusts, where beneficiaries typically have access to certain basic trust information.
Fiduciary duties. Beneficiaries under a Jersey foundation hold no interest in the foundation’s assets and are not owed fiduciary duties by the foundation council or guardian. This differs from trust beneficiaries, who are owed fiduciary duties by their trustees. As a result, foundations may be preferred for holding specific asset types, such as those with depreciation or high-risk characteristics.
Trust or foundation?
Ultimately, the choice between a trust and a foundation depends on various factors, including the individual preferences of the settlor/founder and their advisers, the intended purpose of the structure and the nature of the assets to be held. Both trusts and foundations serve as highly valuable tools in wealth management, succession planning and philanthropy. The decision to opt for a trust or foundation hinges on the specific needs and objectives of the individual or family involved.
Rachel Yao, A comparison of Jersey foundations and trusts, Asia Business Law Journal
自《2009年基金会(泽西岛)法》颁布以来,法律从业者一直在认真评估该法律对客户的切实影响。具体而言,就是分析基金会和信托之间的区别,从而选择最合适的工具来满足每个客户的独特要求。
最近作者观察到来自亚洲高净值家庭的咨询量激增,他们的疑惑在于究竟该选择泽西岛信托,还是泽西岛基金会。尤其当客户的首要目标是慈善时,他们更是无所适从。
信托历史更悠久,已成为继任管理、财富管理以及慈善事业中不可或缺的工具。而在泽西岛这样的普通法司法管辖区,基金会是相对较新的模式,不过,它作为新兴的继任管理和慈善工具,愈来愈受欢迎。
但在大陆法系国家和地区,基金会的历史可以追溯到中世纪,其作用与信托类似。在作遗产规划时,客户通常无法在信托和基金会之间作出抉择。两相比较,何者优势更明显?客户又该如何选择?这些是都常见的困惑。作者将通过这篇文章对信托和基金会之间的区别作简要分析,阐述两者在不同情形下各自的优势。
信托概
自12世纪以来,信托就一直是普通法体系中一个不可或缺的部分。如资产的合法所有人要将资产的合法所有权转让给指定的个人或公司时,可成立信托,前者也称信托委托人,后者则称受托人,这些资产就形成了信托财产。这种财产的转让通常是为了让指定人受益,这些人则被称为受益人。
一旦建立信托,信托财产的合法所有权将归属于受托人,而财产的实益所有权将属于受益人。因此,信托不是一个独立的法律实体;它是一种关系。
信托有多种形式。为受益人之利益而设立信托是最常见的一种信托模式。除此之外,还有出于慈善或非慈善目的而设立的信托,这种信托不一定有受益人。
基金会概述
与信托相比,基金会是一个相对较新的概念,有时被描述为信托和公司的混合体。从本质上看,基金会具有公司的特点,具备独立法人资格(尽管没有股东),像公司一样独立持有财产。
基金会由理事会管理,有基金章程和规章制度作指引,类似于公司受董事会监督,按公司章程运营。
基金会与信托在某些方面也有共同点。和信托一样,基金会由某个创始人成立,创始人将其财产放置在基金会,由基金会持有,类似于信托委托人将其财产转移到信托中,按信托条款管理这些财产。与信托类似,基金会必须有明确的目标,可以是慈善或非慈善目标,也可以是为了受益人的利益而创设。
但基金会有一个重要特点——它没有实益拥有人,即使基金会是为受益人的利益而设立,因此是“无主”结构。
共同特征
灵活性
信托和基金会都是非常灵活的安排。信托和基金会都可以采取全权运营的模式,即让信托受托人或基金会理事会全权决定哪些受益人可在何时、在何种条件下受益,以及其他条件。还可以任命第三方来监督受托人或理事会对信托或基金会财产的管理。在信托中,这一角色被称为信托保护人,在基金会中,担任这一角色的是监护人。
委托人,尤其是拥有巨额财富的委托人,可以选择成立私人信托公司(PTC)来担任家族信托的受托人。这样,委托人可任命自己或家庭成员担任PTC的董事,这也是除了保护人和保留权利之外,家族成员参与信托管理的另一种途径。越来越多委托人设立基金会作为家族信托的受托人,这种基金会被称为私人信托基金会。
无限期
泽西岛的信托和基金会都可以无限期存续,这让它们成为财富代际传承的绝佳工具。
隐私性
就信托而言不需要注册,或公开披露与信托有关的任何文件或信息,能确保完全私密。对于基金会,虽然可通过公开途径获取与基金会有关的一些有限信息,但通常不要求披露基金会的创始人、受益人或基金会的设立目的。因此,信托和基金会都享有高度隐私。
信托的好处
在某些情况下,信托可能比基金会更受青睐。
- 容易建立。信托相对来说较容易建立。只要确定委托人有意向、受托人有志于创立信托,指定信托财产和信托对象(受益人或目的)足够明确,信托即有效成立。当初始信托财产从委托人转至受托人时,信托就实际成立了。尽管设立信托不要求书面文件,但通常书面文件更稳妥。
- 判例。在大多数普通法司法辖区,信托由来已久,被广泛认可。因此,这些管辖区已积累了大量的信托成文法和判例,让信托具有一定程度的可预测性和安全性。包括泽西岛在内的司法管辖区建立了“防火墙”立法,保护信托免受外国管辖权的干涉,进一步增强了信托的可靠性。
- 税收待遇。大多数司法管辖区都有完善的信托税收机制,因此,信托的税务明确、可预测。但是,由于基金会是一个较新的概念,因此在某些辖区,基金会的税收待遇较模糊。正因此,信托对某些家族而言更有吸引力。
基金会的好处
基金会也有其优点。在某些情况下,基金会可能更受欢迎。
- 大陆法管辖区。在某些情况下,尤其是在信托概念(即法定所有权和实益所有权分离)不普及或不被法律允许的大陆法管辖区,基金会比信托更具吸引力。
- 独立的法人资格。基金会具有独立的法人资格,基金会财产的合法所有权和实益所有权均属于基金会,因此它们可以直接与第三方订立合同。这不同于信托,信托的签约方是受托人,而不是信托本身。此外,基金会越来越多地被用于慈善事业,尤其是在不承认信托的司法管辖区。
- 隐私保护更强。对于基金会,通常要求向受益人提供与基金会相关的信息,但可以通过制定基金会条例来规避这一要求。这样,与信托相比,基金会具有更高的保密性,因为在信托中,受益人通常可以获取一些基本的信托信息。
- 信义义务。泽西岛基金会下的受益人对基金会的资产没有权益,基金会理事会或基金会的监护人也不对受益人负有信义义务。而信托的受托人对受益人负有信义义务。因此,基金会尤其适合某些类型的资产,例如那些正在贬值或高风险的资产。
选择信托还是基金会?
那么,该如何选择?这需要考虑种种因素,包括信托委托人或基金会创始人及其顾问的个人偏好、预期目的以及所持资产的性质。信托和基金会都是财富管理、继承规划和慈善事业中极具价值的工具。选择信托还是基金会?这取决于相关个人或家族的具体需求和目标。
本文首次刊登于《亚洲商法》(Asia Business Law Journal)中,经该杂志许可后转载。