On 20 January 2009, the bilateral treaty for the avoidance of double taxation between the Hong Kong SAR and the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (the Treaty) entered into force in both jurisdictions. The Treaty has retroactive effect, and is applicable as from 1 January 2008 with respect to Luxembourg and as from 1 April 2008 with respect to Hong Kong.

To date, only a limited number of jurisdictions have signed a comprehensive double taxation agreement with Hong Kong: namely Belgium, Thailand, the PRC, Vietnam (not yet ratified) and now Luxembourg. The Luxembourg-PRC treaty of 1994 does not apply to Hong Kong.

As discussions at the recent G20 summit reminded the business community, Hong Kong lacks a competitive tax treaty network as compared to, for example, Singapore. The Treaty will strongly contribute to improving Hong Kong's international tax strategy. As well as linking two major financial hubs and business-friendly jurisdictions at the crossroads of the Western and Eastern worlds, it will also give Hong Kong investors unique access to Luxembourg's extensive tax treaty network: 54 jurisdictions have entered into comprehensive double tax treaties with Luxembourg.

This network is complemented by the Grand Duchy's flexible corporate and tax environment, recently enhanced by the law dated 16 December 2008 (discussed below). It is worth mentioning in this respect that Luxembourg features one of the lowest VAT rates (15%) in Europe. As international tax rules tend to subject e-commerce transactions to the laws of the residence of the seller, a number of e-commerce companies such as Amazon and Skype have their head offices in Luxembourg.

The Treaty is attractive for several reasons: (i) because of its tailored provisions; (ii) because it allows freer cash flows between the two jurisdictions; and (iii) because it creates outstanding opportunities for investors willing to invest in and out of Asia through two complementary hubs.

The Treaty's Tailored Provisions

Generally, there are three main aims pursued by countries entering into a comprehensive bilateral taxation agreement: (i) the avoidance of double taxation; (ii) the provision of advantageous taxation; and (iii) the promotion of fiscal cooperation between the treaty parties.

Avoidance of double taxation
Double taxation occurs when the tax laws of two countries overlap, so that for a person carrying on business in the two countries, the same economic event may be taxed several times. Double taxation commonly occurs because of the overlapping of personal taxation with 'real' taxation. For example, a company having its registered office in Country A may be liable to profits tax for revenues derived from a property it owns solely because it is a resident of Country A (and Country A's profits tax is based on personal taxation), while the same revenues may be subject to profits tax in Country B because the property is located in Country B (and Country B applies 'real' taxation rules).

If double taxation is obviously unfair to taxpayers, it may impair free trade, and it was for this reason that the OECD originally encouraged tax treaties between its members via its 'model convention'. The avoidance of double taxation is not particularly relevant to Hong Kong because its territorial approach to taxation means the scope of Hong Kong tax is limited. Hong Kong taxes are fairly unlikely to overlap with taxes imposed by other jurisdictions except where a foreign jurisdiction taxes its own residents on income derived from Hong Kong (in such cases, many jurisdictions provide their own residents with unilateral tax relief in respect of Hong Kong tax paid on income derived in Hong Kong, thus avoiding or reducing double taxation of foreign residents in many cases).

However, Hong Kong's territorial approach to taxation had some impact on the Treaty's drafting. Unlike Luxembourg, the tax laws of Hong Kong do not provide any definition of 'tax resident' a concept commonly used in tax treaties in order to define their scope and rules. The Treaty, by clearly defining in its Article 4 which entities will be treated as Hong Kong residents, provides more certainty than the equivalent double tax treaty entered into between Hong Kong and Belgium, which refers only to the parties' national laws with respect to the definition of 'resident'. It should be noted that foreign companies simply holding their board meetings in Hong Kong are likely to be considered as Hong Kong residents under the Treaty.

Providing advantageous taxation
A second aim of tax treaties is to provide advantageous taxation of transactions between two countries, in order to encourage the development of cross-border business between them. The types of taxes covered vary from one treaty to another. VAT or consumption taxes are rarely covered, since there is a global standard governing consumption taxes according to which goods are taxed in the jurisdiction where they are consumed (therefore there is no risk of double taxation), while income and profits taxes are normally covered.

The main tax advantages created by the Treaty are: (i) to reduce the rate of withholding tax on dividends paid by a Luxembourg entity to a Hong Kong entity from 15% to 0%; and (ii) to reduce the rate of withholding tax on royalties paid by a Hong Kong entity to a Luxembourg entity from 4.95% to 3% (royalties are not taxed under Luxembourg's domestic tax laws). As interest payments are generally not taxed in either Hong Kong or Luxembourg, the provisions of the Treaty dealing with interest payments are not of particular interest.

The Treaty offers better rates than the equivalent Hong Kong-Belgium treaty, under which payments made to a Hong Kong parent company by a Belgian subsidiary are subject to withholding tax at the rates of 5% or 15% for dividends, 10% for interest payments and 5% for royalties.

Taxation of capital gains generated on shares in a Luxembourg company is also relaxed by the Treaty, thus facilitating exit strategies for Hong Kong equity investments in the Grand Duchy. Under Luxembourg domestic tax law, capital gains are treated as profits when a shareholding of more than 10% is 'traded', ie acquired and sold within six months. Under the Treaty, such capital gains are no longer subject to tax, unless the majority of the Luxembourg company's asset value is derived from immovable property located in Luxembourg. Moreover, taxation of capital gains arising from the sale of shares in companies predominantly invested in real estate has a narrower scope than the OECD model convention. For example, capital gains will be tax-exempted if the company conducts business in the relevant property or if the relevant shares are traded on a stock exchange, even though the 50% threshold is exceeded.

Enhancing fiscal cooperation between the parties
Finally, tax treaties are aimed more and more at enhancing the international cooperation and recognition by two countries of their respective tax systems.

A first consequence of this is that a country entering into a tax treaty will normally not 'blacklist' the other party by treating it as a tax haven, even though there are some exceptions, which may become more common following the recent G20 meeting (some EU countries already treat Singapore as a tax haven even though they have entered into comprehensive tax treaties with it). Tax adjustments and penalties deriving from those contra-legem policies may however be ruled out by tax courts.

A second consequence is to facilitate the avoidance of tax evasion through the exchange of information between the tax authorities of the treaty parties. Double tax treaties usually set out provisions pertaining to the exchange of information between their respective tax administrations (EOI provisions). EOI provisions may be classified in three categories. The first category corresponds to a high level of transparency agreed upon by the parties: transmission of tax payers' information is spontaneous, or may even be automatic when the two jurisdictions share their fiscal databases. Such EOI provisions are stipulated in tax treaties entered into by the majority of the EU members. The second category comprises EOI provisions under which information is communicated on demand. EOI provisions of the third category also stipulate transmission of data on demand, but only on condition that such transmission is not prohibited by domestic laws (such as Luxembourg's banking secrecy provisions). Hong Kong law (s 51(4) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112)) prohibits the Inland Revenue Department from invoking its information-seeking powers for matters that do not relate to tax liabilities under the Inland Revenue Ordinance; only domestic tax interests can possibly give rise to exchange of information with foreign authorities. As a result, the Treaty's EOI provisions had to be of the third type, which is also the category favoured by Luxembourg.

Under the latest version of the OECD model convention of 2004, and as re-iterated at the recent G20 meeting, the refusal of one treaty party to supply tax information requested by the other party may not be based on the fact that it does not collect information for its own purposes, or on banking secrecy provisions. Both Luxembourg and Hong Kong have recently issued public statements indicating that they will strive to make their respective double tax treaties comply with the EOI provisions prescribed by the OECD. This will certainly involve lengthy amendment procedures.

Free Cash Flows

Luxembourg investments in Hong Kong and Hong Kong investments in Luxembourg both benefit from the Treaty.

Taxation of dividend income received by a Luxembourg company: participation exemption regime
The Luxembourg participation exemption regime (the Regime: see Chart 1) is a cornerstone for corporate and tax structuring on the basis of the Treaty.

Dividends received by a Luxembourg company are in principle subject to corporate income tax in Luxembourg. However, Luxembourg domestic tax laws provide that dividends paid by a foreign company are fully exempted from income tax in Luxembourg if: (i) the foreign subsidiary is subject to a comparable tax in its jurisdiction of incorporation; and (ii) the Luxembourg parent company has held shares representing at least 10% of the capital of the subsidiary (or shares acquired for an aggregate purchase price of 1,200,000 or its equivalent) for a period of at least 12 months, such holding period requirement being waived under the Treaty. Dividends which do not qualify for the Regime can be exempted up to 50%.

For companies having their residence outside the EU, the Luxembourg tax authorities consider that a foreign corporate income tax is comparable to the Luxembourg income tax to the extent that: (i) the tax is not optional; (ii) the nominal tax rate is not less than half of the Luxembourg corporate income tax rate (as the Luxembourg corporate income tax rate is 21%, the foreign tax rate must not be less than 10.5%); and (iii) the rules and criteria to determine the taxable basis are similar to those applicable under Luxembourg tax law.

For a Hong Kong subsidiary held by a Luxembourg resident company, special attention will need to be paid as to whether Hong Kong's 16.5% profits tax will be regarded as comparable to Luxembourg corporate tax.

However, any such doubts will be dispelled following an advance tax ruling to be issued by the Luxembourg tax authorities confirming the application of the Regime to profits distribution and capital gains derived by a Luxembourg parent company from its shareholding in a Hong Kong subsidiary.

It is worth mentioning that the issuing of advanced tax rulings by the Luxembourg tax authorities should provide a high level of legal comfort to investors since the Luxembourg tax administration is bound by such rulings, unlike in Belgium. Luxembourg tax rulings are granted on a case-by-case basis upon submission of a file to the tax authorities by legal professionals. Physical meetings between those professionals and the authorities are commonly required.

The Luxembourg government indicated in its comments on the Treaty that the Hong Kong territorial taxation system should not hinder the application of the Regime. However, a 'place of effective management' test will be of material importance in order to determine whether the subsidiary will be considered as a Hong Kong resident.

It should also be pointed out that it is not necessary that the Hong Kong subsidiary effectively pays a 10.5% tax in Hong Kong. It is sufficient for it to be subject in principle to such tax. As a result, a Hong Kong subsidiary which has a permanent establishment or subsidiary in China, the profits of which are taxed in China and not in Hong Kong, should in principle be considered as subject to a comparable tax and therefore eligible to benefit from the Regime. If the previous flexibility and cooperative attitude of the Luxembourg tax authorities is anything to go by, it should be possible to obtain such confirmation within a couple of weeks.

Tax-exempted dividends paid by a Luxembourg company
Luxembourg's extensive tax treaty network, reinforced by a recently adopted (December 2008) law on the taxation of dividends paid to countries with which Luxembourg has concluded a tax treaty (the Law), commonly allows outbound withholding tax on dividends to be reduced to 0% when repatriating profits to a treaty jurisdiction such as Hong Kong (see Chart 2).

Two conditions must be fulfilled under the Law. First, the parent company must hold at least 10% of the Luxembourg subsidiary's share capital (or shares acquired for an aggregate purchase price of €1,200,000 or its equivalent). Second, the parent company must be subject to income tax which is comparable to Luxembourg income tax, as discussed above.

When the above treaty rate is not available (ie when Luxembourg has no treaty with a particular jurisdiction, or the above conditions are not met), there are some common methods used to optimise repatriation of cash held by a Luxembourg subsidiary, including to offshore jurisdictions. One popular technique is the use of hybrid instruments known as PECs (preferred equity certificates) and CPECs (convertible preferred equity certificates), which are not regulated by law or by administrative guidelines.

These hybrid instruments feature a combination of equity and debt. The common equity features are: (i) a long maturity of 30 years and more; (ii) the stapling of PECs and CPECs to equity shares (so that the hybrid instruments must be transferred along with the relevant shares); (iii) the qualification of PECs and CPECs as transferable securities; and (iv) their subordination vis-a-vis other debts of the issuing company (while ranking in priority to share capital).

In terms of tax and accounting, holders of PECs and CPECs are usually considered as creditors: no voting rights are granted to them, and they do not share the losses of the issuing company. In the jurisdiction of the holder of the PECs and CPECs (for example in the USA) they are usually treated as equity.

CPECs are convertible into shares, while both PECs and CPECs can be redeemed at market value. Both types of instruments may also be interest bearing.

Outstanding Opportunities

While Hong Kong is an unrivalled platform for investments in and out of China, Luxembourg assumes the same function with respect to the European Union since the introduction of the tax-friendly Societe Holding in 1929, which has since been replaced by the Societe de Gestion de Patrimoine Familial (SPF). Luxembourg is also the world leader for the cross-border distribution of investment funds, while Hong Kong is a successful regional hub for asset managers to efficiently monitor their operations in Asia.

Overview of a popular Luxembourg holding company structure: the SPF
A wide range of regulated and unregulated investment vehicles are available in Luxembourg in order to structure investments in an efficient manner, none of which are - remarkably - excluded from the scope of the Treaty. The SPF is a vehicle used in private wealth management. It can be defined as a company: (i) established as a public or private limited liability company, a company limited by shares or a cooperative entity under the form of a public limited liability company; (ii) whose purpose is limited to the acquisition, holding, management and disposal of financial assets to the exclusion of any other type of commercial activity; (iii) the shares of which are exclusively held by eligible investors, ie individuals managing their private wealth, or private wealth entities acting for one or several individuals.

The SPF may hold participations in other companies, or voting rights - a SPF can therefore have a subsidiary in Hong Kong - but only to the extent that the SPF is not involved in the management of these companies. It is not allowed to render any kind of services, including granting interest bearing loans, even to companies in which the SPF owns equity shares. It may however advance some funds to or guarantee liabilities of a company in which it holds a participation, but only on an ancillary and non-remunerated basis.

The SPF is a tax-exempted entity for the purposes of Luxembourg tax law. This is largely due to the fact that the SPF is not deemed to make business profits. It is only acting in the interest of private investors and thus does not carry out any economic activity. Income from financial assets is therefore exempted at the level of the SPF as if it was a 'transparent' partnership or societe civile, but may be taxed subsequently in the hands of the shareholder once the income is distributed to it.

The SPF is excluded from the exemption regime for a given financial year if at least 5% of the total dividend income it receives during that year is derived from participations in non-resident non-listed companies that are not subject to an income tax comparable to the Luxembourg corporate income tax.

SPFs are also entitled to issue bearer shares.

Enhanced opportunities in the field of asset management
The Luxembourg financial regulator, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the CSSF), and the Securities and Futures Commission (the SFC) in Hong Kong have been cooperating for years. The latter has progressively adapted its rules to the evolution of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) regulatory framework with respect, for example, to the use of derivatives, the relaxation of sub-management rules and, more recently, the anticipation of implementation of the UCITS IV directive. It results that the distribution and marketing of UCITS funds in Hong Kong is facilitated by a fast track procedure under SFC rules. Today, a large majority of the foreign investment funds distributed in Hong Kong are Luxembourg UCITS funds, ie regulated funds benefiting from an 'investment passport' so that they can be distributed in all EU countries on the basis of the approval by a sole EU national regulator such as the CSSF.

The combination of the Treaty with the PRC-Hong Kong double tax treaty certainly favours the investment in China by Luxembourg based funds and private equity ventures looking for opportunities in the Chinese market. Funds management companies based in Luxembourg can use a Hong Kong subsidiary to monitor their business in China: under the PRC-Hong Kong treaty, the definition of permanent establishment for a Hong Kong company having business in China is especially advantageous, no western country and no other financial centre benefits from the same advantage.

On the regulatory side, it is significant that the CSSF and the PRC regulator, the China Banking Regulatory Commission (the CBRC), have signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2008 (the MOU), according to which Luxembourg became part of the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor and the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor programmes allowing respectively the distribution of Luxembourg investment funds in China and the investment in Chinese markets by Luxembourg financial institutions. As the most prominent offshore jurisdictions have not yet entered into any memoranda of understanding with the PRC, as the UCITS 'brand' is becoming more and more valued in Asia, and as a number of PRC asset management companies have established joint ventures in Hong Kong with foreign asset managers, the combination of the Treaty, the PRC-HK treaty and the MOU will tend to encourage the setting-up of China-focused UCITS funds in Luxembourg that would be managed from Hong Kong and target both Hong Kong and PRC investors.

Furthermore, as onshore hedge funds become more popular since the hedge funds industry and mutual funds industry tend to converge, Luxembourg UCITS funds will be convenient vehicles to benefit from Asian growth through the use of alternative investment techniques such as the popular 130/30 strategy.

Conclusion

Hong Kong and Luxembourg have a lot in common to share and to offer: tiny territories which facilitate quicksilver adaptation to economic and financial evolutions; multilingual, wide-open and business-friendly cultures; highly professional and industrious workforces; unrivalled expertise as international hubs for asset management and multinational groups' tax efficient structuring; as well as an innate willingness to make available at all times to investors the best-suited legal and regulatory platforms. In this perspective, the Hong Kong-Luxembourg tax treaty offers outstanding business opportunities to investors willing to benefit from the synergies provided by both jurisdictions, and it can be anticipated that significant capital flows between Asia and Europe will be channelled through the two jurisdictions, allowing Hong Kong and Luxembourg to give investors the best of both Western and Eastern worlds.


Gerald Pasquier
Senior Associate
Lefevre Pelletier & associes, France
gpasquier@lpalaw.asia

Daniel Boone
Director
Wildgen Partners, Luxembourg
daniel.boone@wildgen.lu

David Maria
Senior Associate
Wildgen Partners, Luxembourg
david.maria@wildgen.lu

盧森堡─香港雙重稅務條約： 東西方世界中的至優
Gerald Pasquier、Daniel Boone及David Maria探討了歐亞之間的商業聯繫所帶來的潛在利益。

香港特別行政區和盧森堡大公國就避免雙重徵稅而訂立的雙邊條約（「本條約」）已於2009年1月20日於兩地實施。該條約具溯及力，並已於2008年1月1日及2008年4月1日分別於盧森堡及香港生效。

至今只有少數國家已和香港簽訂綜合的雙重徵稅協議，包括比利時、泰國、中國、越南(尚未追認)及盧森堡。盧森堡與中國於1994年簽訂的條約並不適用於香港。

最近召開的20國集團峰會討論正好提醒商界，香港欠缺其他如新加坡等地區所擁有具競爭力的稅務條約網絡。本條約將大大有助改善香港的國際稅務策略。除了將兩個位處中西方交界的主要金融中心及有助營商的司法管轄區相連之外，本條約亦可讓香港投資者利用盧森堡龐大的稅務條約網絡。盧森堡已與54個司法管轄區建立綜合的雙重徵稅協議。

盧森堡靈活的公司及稅務環境因2008年12月16日生效的法例（將於以下詳述）而得到鞏固，並與稅務條約網絡互補不足。值得一提的是盧森堡乃歐洲徵收最低增值稅（15%）的國家之一。由於國際稅務規則傾向於將電子貿易交易授予賣方居住處的法律所管轄，故許多如亞馬遜及Skype等電子貿易公司均選擇於盧森堡設立總部。

本條約的吸引力源於多方面：（一）由於其度身訂造的條文；（二）由於其容許兩個司法管轄區之間可有更自由的現金流；及（三）由於其創造優越機會讓投資者可通過兩個互補的城市於亞洲內外投資。

度身訂造的條文

國與國之間通常訂立雙邊徵稅協議以達致三個目的：（一）避免雙重徵稅；（二）提供有利徵稅；及（三）鼓勵條約國之間的財務合作。

避免雙重徵稅
當兩個國家的稅務法律重疊時便會引致雙重徵稅，於兩地從事業務的人士因而可能就同一項經濟活動而被多次徵稅。雙重徵稅通常由於個人徵稅及「對物」徵稅重疊所引致。例如，於國家甲設立已登記辦事處的公司可能須就源自其擁有的物業的收入而被徵收利得稅，只因其屬於國家甲的居民(而國家甲的利得稅為個人徵稅)，但同時該等收入亦可能因物業位處國家乙而被國家乙徵收利得稅（國家乙實行「對物」徵稅規則）。

如雙重徵稅明顯地對納稅人不公平，便可能有損自由貿易。經濟合作開發組織因此率先鼓勵其成員國通過其「協定範本」制定稅務條約。此等避免雙重徵稅之安排對香港並無特別意義，由於香港的稅項計算採用地域原則，故香港的徵稅範圍其實有限。香港稅項多數不會與其他司法管轄區徵收的稅項重疊，除非該外地司法管轄區就其居民於香港取得之收入而徵稅（在該等情況下，許多司法管轄區就源自香港的收入所繳納的香港稅項而向其居民提供單邊稅務濟助，因而在許多情況下避免或減少外地居民的雙重徵稅）。

然而，香港稅項採用的地域計算方法對本條約的起草構成一定影響。有別於盧森堡，香港的稅務法並未為「稅務居民」提供定義，而此概念則廣泛地用於稅務條約以界定其範圍及規則。本條約第四條清楚界定了何等實體將被視作香港居民，較香港與比利時之間所簽訂的等同雙重稅務條約更具確定性。在香港和比利時簽訂的條約內，有關「居民」的定義只交由各自的國家法律來進行詮釋。值得注意的是，根據本條約，在香港舉行董事會會議的外地公司很可能會被視作香港居民。

提供有利徵稅
稅務條約的第二個目的是為兩個國家之間的交易提供有利徵稅，以鼓勵跨國業務發展。條約涵蓋的稅項種類各有不同，通常包括入息稅和利得稅，而不包括增值稅或消費稅。根據國際標準，貨品均在其被使用的司法管轄區被徵稅（因而避免雙重徵稅）。

本條約達致的主要稅務優點為：（一）將盧森堡實體給予香港實體的股息預扣稅率由15%調低至0%；及（二）將香港實體給予盧森堡實體的專營權費預扣稅率由4.95%調低至3%（盧森堡的本地稅務法不對專營權費徵稅）。由於利息支出通常不須在香港及盧森堡徵稅，本條約內有關利息支出的條文並無特別意義。

本條約較等同的香港—比利時條約提供更佳的稅率。根據香港—比利時條約，由比利時附屬公司繳付予香港母公司的款項須課預扣稅5%至15%，繳付的利息須課稅10%，而專營權費則須課稅5%。

就盧森堡的公司股份所獲得的資本增益，本條約亦對其徵稅予以放寬，因而有利於香港的股權投資公司在該大公國的轉型策略。根據盧森堡的本地稅務法，超過10%的股份買賣，即於六個月內被買或被賣，其產生的資本增益會被視作利潤。根據本條約，該等資本增益將無需課稅，除非該盧森堡公司的大部份資產值源自位於盧森堡的不動產。在本條約之下，主要投資於房地產的公司的股份銷售所致的資本增益課稅亦比經濟合作開發組織之「協定範本」為低。例如，若該公司於有關物業內營業，或有關股份於交易所內買賣，即使超過50%的徵稅點，資本增益亦將獲豁免繳稅。

加強條約國之間的財政合作
最後，越來越多的稅務條約是為了促進國際間的合作及認同兩個國家各自的稅務制度。

訂立稅務條約的國家通常不會將另一方視作避稅港，但當中亦有例外，在最近召開的20國集團峰會後情況尤其常見(有些歐盟國家雖已與新加坡訂立綜合的稅務條約，但仍將其視作避稅港)。由此等先例引致的稅務調整及罰則卻有可能被稅務法庭否決。

訂立稅務條約的國家亦可透過雙方稅務部門的訊息交流而避免偷漏稅。雙重稅務條約一般訂明有關雙方稅務部門的訊息交流的條文（建議書條文）。建議書條文包括三個類別，第一個類別指經雙方同意的高透明度訊息交流：納稅人的資料可隨時被傳送，若該兩個司法管轄區互相分享其稅務資料庫，則納稅人資料更可獲自動傳送。大部份歐盟成員國之間訂立的稅務條約均有列明此類建議書條文。第二個類別的建議書條文只在要求下提供資料。第三個類別的建議書條文亦需在要求下提供資料，但只在該等傳送並不違反本地法律的情況下適用（如盧森堡的銀行保密條文）。香港法律（《稅務條例》第112章第51號第4條）禁止稅務局援用其資料搜集權力以獲取與《稅務條例》列明的稅項不相關的資料，實則只有與本地稅項相關事宜方可與外地機關交換資料。因此，本條約的建議書條文應為第三個類別，亦為盧森堡贊同的類別。

根據經濟合作開發組織於2004年最新的協定範本及最近於20國集團峰會上的意見，條約一方不可因其不需搜集有關資料，或基於銀行保密條文而拒絕對方所要求的資料。盧森堡及香港均已發表公開聲明，表示會盡力使各自的雙重稅務條約符合經濟合作開發組織的建議書條文。這必然會涉及繁複的修訂程序。

自由現金流

盧森堡於香港的投資及香港於盧森堡的投資均受惠於本條約。

盧森堡公司所獲的股息收入徵稅： 參與豁免制度
盧森堡參與豁免制度（本制度：表一）為本條約之公司及稅務結構的基石。

盧森堡公司所獲的股息原則上需於盧森堡繳納公司入息稅。然而，盧森堡的本地稅務法規定，在以下情況下，由外地公司繳付的股息可於盧森堡全面豁免入息稅：（一）該外地附屬公司需於其成立為法團的司法管轄區繳納類似稅項；及（二）其盧森堡母公司於最少12個月內持有該附屬公司不少於10%的股權（或總買價相當於1,200,000歐羅的股份買入）。此股份持有期限要求於本條約下獲省免。不符合本制度的股息，可獲豁免最多50%的稅項。

對居住地位處歐盟以外的公司而言，盧森堡稅務部門在以下的情況下同意外地公司入息稅等同盧森堡入息稅：（一）該稅項並不具選擇性；（二）該稅率面值不少於盧森堡公司入息稅率的一半（盧森堡公司入息稅率為21%，故外地稅率不得少於10.5%）；及(三)用以界定應課稅的規則及準則與盧森堡稅務法的規則及準則相似。

由居籍在盧森堡的公司所持有的香港附屬公司，須注意香港16.5%的利得稅是否會被視為相當於盧森堡公司稅。

透過盧森堡稅務部門所發布的預先稅務規例，確認了本制度將適用於盧森堡母公司藉著其在香港附屬公司的股權而獲得的利潤分配及資本增益，因而消除了任何上述疑慮。

值得一提的是，不同於比利時，盧森堡稅務部門將受有關裁定約束。因此該裁定應可為投資者提供高度的法律保障。盧森堡稅務裁定乃根據個別由專業法律人士向稅務部門提交的案件而定，一般需要法律人士與稅務部門面談商討。

盧森堡政府評論本條約時指出，香港稅項採用的地域計算方法不應影響本制度的執行，但亦有需要進行「有效管理地點」測試以決定附屬公司是否被界定為香港居民。

事實上，香港附屬公司並不一定需要於香港繳付10.5%的稅項，其只需要在原則上須繳付此等稅項即可。因此，一間於中國擁有永久場所或附屬公司，而其利潤需要在中國而非香港課稅的香港附屬公司，原則上應被視作須繳付類似稅項並因此合資格受惠於本制度。就盧森堡稅務部門過往的靈活性和合作態度來看，有關安排可望於數週內獲確定。

由盧森堡公司派發的獲稅務豁免的股息
盧森堡的龐大稅務條約網絡受到最近 （2008年12月）通過的「派發予與盧森堡簽訂稅務條約的國家的股息徵稅法例」（該法例）所鞏固，通常容許把利潤匯返簽定了條約的司法管轄區(如香港)時將股息預扣稅降至0%（見表二）。

根據該法例，此安排必須符合兩個條件。第一，母公司必須持有其盧森堡附屬公司不少於10%的股本（或總買價相當於1,200,000歐羅的股份買入）。第二，母公司必須應課相當於盧森堡入息稅的入息稅，如上所述。

當以上條約稅率並不適用時（即當盧森堡跟某司法管轄區並無訂立條約，或當並不符合以上條件時），可使用一些常用方法以有效處理由盧森堡附屬公司遣返至包括離岸司法管轄區在內的現金。其中一種常用方法為採用名為 PEC（優先股）及CPEC （可轉換優先股）的混合性工具。此等工具並不受法例或行政指引所約束。

此等混合性工具包含股權和債務的組合。常見的股權特徵為：（一）擁有三十年或以上的長線到期日；（二）伴隨優先股及可轉換優先股的股權股份（以致該等混合性工具必須與有關股份同時轉換）；（三）優先股及可轉換優先股為可轉換證券；及(四)其次級工具與發行公司的其他債務具有相同地位（倘其次序乃優先於股本）。

根據稅務及會計準則，優先股及可轉換優先股持有人一般被視作債權人，他們沒有投票權，亦不需分擔發行公司之損失。在優先股及可轉換優先股持有人身處的司法管轄區（如美國），它們一般被視作股權。

可轉換優先股可轉換為股份，而優先股及可轉換優先股均可以市價贖回。兩類工具均為有息工具。

創造優越機會

對於在中國內外投資而言，香港是無可比擬的投資平台。盧森堡在歐盟亦擔當同樣角色。盧森堡於1929年引入有利稅務的 Societe Holding，並其後被Societe de Gestion de Patrimoine Familial (SPF) 所取代。盧森堡亦為環球跨境投資基金銷售的領導者，而香港則為亞洲區內基金經理有效監察業務的地區樞紐。

常見的盧森堡控股公司架構─SPF概覽
盧森堡具有多種不同的受管制及不受管制的投資工具以供選擇，以有效地管理投資。所有的投資工具均包括於本條約的範圍內。SPF 屬於個人財富管理的一項投資工具，它可以被界定為屬於具有以下特點的一間公司：（一）成立為一間公眾或私人有限法律責任的公司，或有限股份的公司，或以公眾有限法律責任公司形式成立的合作實體；（二）其成立目的只限於收購、持有、管理及處置金融資產，而不包括任何其他商業活動；（三）其股份全權為合資格投資者所持有，即管理其私人財富的個別人士，或代表一位或數位個別人士行事的私人財富實體。

該SPF可參與其他公司之業務或擁有投票權。SPF因此可於香港設立附屬公司，但該SPF不可參與此等公司之管理。SPF不可提供任何服務，包括授予包括SPF持有股本在內的公司有息貸款。SPF卻可以在附帶及不獲酬金的情況下為參與業務之公司提供資金或擔保債務。

在盧森堡的稅務法中，SPF是獲稅務豁免的實體。這主要是由於SPF並非視作賺取商業利潤，它只代表私人投資者，故並不從事任何經濟活動。在SPF的層面上，財務資產收入因而獲得豁免，而SPF便有如一「民間公司」（societe civile）。但當收入分發到股東手上時，該收入便須被徵稅。

若該年度不少於5%的總股息收入乃源自參與非本地註冊的非上市公司業務，而該等業務並不需繳付相當於盧森堡公司入息稅的入息稅，則SPF 在該財政年度內將不獲豁免。

SPF亦可發出不記名股份。

為資產管理提供更佳機遇
盧森堡金融規管當局 Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) 及香港的證券及期貨事務監察委員會（證監會）已合作多年。後者已逐步完善與例如運用衍生工具、次級管理規則的放寬及未來 UCITS IV指令的實施等方面的規則，以配合可轉讓證券集合投資事業 (UCITS) 監管架構的發展。證監會規則下的快捷處理程序亦因而促進了UCITS基金在香港的分銷與推廣。時至今日，大部份在香港分銷的外地投資基金皆為盧森堡UCITS基金，此等受監管的基金均受惠於這種「投資保障」，在獲得唯一歐盟國家規管當局（如CSSF）的批准後，可於所有歐盟成員國分銷。

以盧森堡為基地並於中國擁有投資的基金及於中國市場尋找商機的私人企業都會受惠於本條約與中國─香港雙重稅務條約。以盧森堡為基地的基金管理公司可通過其香港附屬公司以管理其中國業務。該中國─香港條約給予在中國擁有業務的香港公司特別有利的永久機構定義，現時並無其他西方國家或金融中心可享有此優厚待遇。

在監管方面，CSSF已與中國監管當局，即中國銀行業監督管理委員會（中國銀監會）於2008年簽署諒解備忘錄（備忘錄）。根據此備忘錄，盧森堡成為合格境內機構投資者及合格境外機構投資者，盧森堡投資基金因而可於中國分銷，盧森堡金融機構亦可於中國市場投資。現時，主要的離岸司法管轄區並未與中國簽訂任何備忘錄，UCITS「品牌」在亞洲越來越受到重視，亦有許多中國資產管理公司已與外國資產管理人於香港成立合營企業。集合本條約、中國─香港條約及備忘錄的優勢，可促進以中國為中心的UCITS基金在盧森堡的發展，亦有助於從香港管理此等以香港及中國投資者為目標的基金。

此外，對沖基金與互惠基金行業有意進行合併，岸上對沖基金因而越趨流行。盧森堡UCITS基金將成為方便的投資工具，並可利用如130/30等另類投資策略而受惠於亞洲的發展。

香港與盧森堡擁有許多共同之處：地方小、具多種官方語言、人民普遍富裕。兩地均為成立控股公司的理想地點，亦為資產管理業的國際樞紐及主要金融中心。本條約的出現，可望經由兩地輸送亞歐之間龐大的資金流。

結語

香港和盧森堡具有很多共同之處以供分享和提供﹕兩地都是幅源不廣，對經濟和金融的發展變化易於適應；都具有多語言、開放和重商文化；都擁有高度專業和勤奮的勞動人口；在資產管理和跨國集團的有效稅務構建方面，都擁有作為國際中心的無可匹敵專業人才；都先天具有向投資者提供最適當的法律和監管平臺的積極性。從這一角度看，香港和盧森堡之間訂立的稅務條約，為企求自兩地的協作中獲益的投資者提供了顯著的商機。我們可以預期，歐、亞之間的重大資本流量，將會透過這兩個司法管轄區而流通，使香港和盧森堡一同向投資者呈獻東西方世界中最好的一面。



Gerald Pasquier
Senior Associate
Lefevre  Pelletier & associes, France
gpasquier@lpalaw.asia  

Daniel Boone
Director
Wildgen Partners, Luxembourg
daniel.boone@wildgen.lu  

David Maria
Senior Associate
Wildgen Partners, Luxembourg
david.maria@wildgen.lu