Page 1

MARCH - APRIL 2019 2019 年 3、4 月刊 Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 STRATEGY FOR RESOLVING CROSS-BORDER DISPUTES BY CHINESE COMPANIES ...................4 中国企业跨国商业纠纷解决策略...............................................................................................................10 THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT IS COMING. IS YOUR BUSINESS READY? ...............14 《加州消费者隐私法案》就要来了。您的企业做好准备了吗? .................................................................20 MEXICO – THE GATEWAY FOR INVESTMENTS IN AMERICA BY CHINESE COMPANIES ................25 墨西哥 – 中国企业投资美洲大陆的门户....................................................................................................34 ONE YEAR AFTER U.S. TAX REFORM – WHAT CHINESE CORPORATIONS NEED TO KNOW ........41 美国税改一年后 – 中国企业需知道的事....................................................................................................51

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


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。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Strategy for Resolving Cross-Border Disputes by Chinese Companies By Mike Chiang In a related article for the Shanghai Municipal Commission in 2011,1 I suggested that Chinese companies would confront more and more cross-border disputes as they continued to accumulate wealth through their robust business and investment activities. In the succeeding seven years, Chinese companies indeed became involved in numerous cross-border litigations and arbitrations involving sales, distribution, licensing and shareholder disputes, product liabilities, patent infringement claims and security-related issues, to name a few. The growth in cross-border disputes mirrors the size of the Chinese economy, which nearly doubled during these seven years. With the continuing growth of the Chinese economy, Chinese companies would continue to become prime targets for cross-border litigation and arbitration. There have also been many changes to the legal landscape where Chinese companies conduct or operate their business over the last several years. For example, partially due to China's vast consumer market and the Chinese court system's improved capability and efficiency in handling intellectual property disputes, Chinese courts have increasingly become a desirable forum for multinational companies to fight their patent battles. On the U.S. side, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed its interpretation of the laws regarding under what circumstances a U.S. court may have jurisdiction over foreign defendants in U.S. lawsuits. These and other recent developments in the legal systems of U.S., China and other jurisdictions should be taken into account by Chinese companies in formulating a strategy to deal with cross-border disputes in this new era. In this article, we will share our viewpoints, observation and experience in the following four-part strategy to help Chinese companies better implement and apply a strategy for resolving cross-border disputes.

1. FIGHT THE BATTLE WITHIN YOUR BORDER Although many Chinese business have acquired more experience in international business transactions during the past several years, the focus of many Chinese businesses is still to negotiate the best business terms for their deals. Many Chinese companies are skilled in obtaining favorable prices and other business terms; however, in many cases, not enough attention is paid to legal terms and issues, especially contract terms relating to dispute resolution. Because of their culture, when they begin talking with foreign business parties about potential business deals, Chinese companies are not accustomed to addressing the resolution of possible business disputes. Many multinational companies, however, have been active in the international business arena for decades. These multinational companies have already gained substantial experience in dealing with disputes arising from cross-border business transactions. The laws of each jurisdiction generally apply only within its respective borders. Even though certain laws and regulations between jurisdictions may look alike, their applications could be entirely different. For example, the evidence collection process in the U.S. is very different from the one in China. Therefore, if Chinese companies can resolve the cross-border disputes in China, they would be in a much more advantageous position. The Chinese companies would be able to analyze and handle relevant issues while making better decisions according to the rules and customs with which they are familiar. In addition, it would be much easier for them to obtain suitable assistance from professionals who share the same culture and language.

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


On the other hand, if Chinese companies are required to resolve their cross-border disputes in foreign jurisdictions, they would be dealing with different legal systems, sets of rules, language, culture and social background. Therefore, even if the companies have a strong case, they would still be disadvantaged by other factors. Also, if Chinese companies need to handle cross-border disputes outside of China, they would have to devote more time and resources in order to obtain a sufficient level of assistance necessary for them to deal with the unfamiliar risks and issues. For example, Chinese companies are generally unfamiliar with U.S. evidential discovery rules, which require a party in a dispute to voluntarily disclose certain evidence to the other side, even if the evidence to be disclosed is harmful to the disclosing party. If the Chinese companies have not been timely and properly advised on these issues, they may mistakenly refuse to make the disclosure required by law. As a result, the court or arbitral tribunal could consequently render a judgment and ruling against the Chinese companies by adverse inference because they may think that the Chinese companies are hiding certain evidence. Moreover, even if Chinese companies could overcome the above-mentioned disadvantages through suitable assistance, it still would be difficult for them to expect completely fair treatment in a jurisdiction where the judges, arbitrators or jurors are all from the same background as the opposing party. In the U.S., if a party of one state is sued by another party in that party's home state, it is usually joked that the party being sued will be "home-cooked" in the other party's home state. If resolving a dispute in another party's territory is risky in a domestic litigation, Chinese companies should undoubtedly try to avoid the risks of resolving cross-border disputes in other countries. Therefore, if Chinese companies have bargaining power, the first thing they should do is to demand that potential future disputes be resolved in China. If they do not have such bargaining power, Chinese companies should try to resolve the disputes in a neutral third country. While it is still the general rule for a company to fight its legal battles in its home state or country, as many Chinese companies have expanded their business activities and interest to other countries and are competing for business in many foreign markets, if warranted by the circumstances, the Chinese companies should also consider initiating legal action in other jurisdictions to enhance its legal position and obtain leverage against their competitors or opposing parties. For example, although Chinese telecommunications equipment giant Huawei Technologies has for many years spent considerable time in U.S. courtrooms defending itself from allegedly infringing on other companies' patents, in 2016, it filed a patent infringement case against a U.S. telecommunications carrier as well as sued a Korean electronics company in the U.S. Some think that Huawei wanted to break into the U.S. smartphone headsets market at that time and understood that its competitors would not welcome it. By initiating the lawsuits in the U.S., Huawei may have wanted to send a message that it has its own patents and will not just sit back and be a target. There are many other examples of companies filing legal actions outside their home countries in order to enhance their legal positions or gain certain strategic advantages. For instance, in 2016, Canadian intellectual property firm WiLAN filed a patent infringement suit against Japanese company Sony in the Chinese court in Nanjing. In 2017, a U.S. telecommunications giant filed several lawsuits against Apple in China demanding licensing fees and seeking ban of the sales of Apple products in China. In fact, the Chinese court system has become an important battleground for protecting intellectual property (IP) rights globally. Obviously, if a company can win in Chinese courts and the defendant is selling products in the vast Chinese domestic market or is producing in China for exporting all over the world, that company will have a lot of advantages. Therefore, in this increasingly interconnected global business world, Chinese companies should work with their Chinese, U.S. or other international counsel to formulate the most suitable litigation strategy for them. While Chinese companies, when facing cross-border disputes, should still aim to fight its legal battles in China, if initiating a lawsuit against its opposing parties outside China will give the Chinese companies certain important strategic advantages, Chinese companies should also not be hesitate to initiate such actions in the U.S. or other foreign jurisdictions.

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


2. FACE THE CROSS-BORDER DISPUTE WHEN IT OCCURS Certainly, Chinese companies cannot expect that all cross-border disputes will be resolved in China or other jurisdictions that they prefer. In fact, other than contractual disputes, in which the parties may agree to resolve the dispute in a certain jurisdiction in advance, there are many situations whereby the parties cannot agree on how and where to resolve their disputes beforehand. For example, if a power bank manufactured by a Chinese company is sold to a mobile phone user in New York, and if there is a defect in the power bank that resulted in a fire and burned down the customer's house, causing bodily harm and injury, the New York customer would most likely sue the Chinese manufacturer, U.S. importer, distributors of the product and all other relevant parties in a New York court. Therefore, it is impossible for the Chinese manufacturer to eliminate the possibility of being sued outside of China if their products could cause damage to users in a foreign country. When Chinese companies have no choice but to deal with a cross-border dispute in a foreign jurisdiction, they should not try to avoid it. When facing such a situation, some companies decide not to do anything with the dispute, thinking that the foreign court or arbitral tribunal would not treat them equally or would even discriminate against them. Other companies assumed that, even if the opposing parties win the lawsuit or arbitration in the foreign jurisdiction, such a foreign judgment or arbitral award would have no effect on them. Unfortunately, such misunderstandings or erroneous beliefs often cause Chinese companies to lose critical timing in dealing with cross-border disputes. For example, some Chinese companies have chosen not to answer lawsuits filed with U.S. courts, and such failures, in many cases, have resulted in default judgments against them. It should be noted that even there is lack of a treaty between U.S. and China with respect to the recognition and enforcement of the respective judgment, there is an increasing trend for Chinese courts to recognize U.S. judgments. In fact, in June 2017, the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court in China's Hubei Province made a ruling that recognized a U.S. civil judgment from Los Angeles Superior Court. In September 2018, Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court made a ruling that recognized a judgment rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. These two Chinese court rulings indicate that Chinese courts may recognize U.S. state or federal court judgment on the basis that courts in the U.S. have previously recognized Chinese judgments. Also, even if a U.S. judgment was not recognized by the Chinese court, the prevailing party of the U.S. lawsuit may also attempt to enforce the U.S. judgment against the assets that the Chinese party may have in the U.S. or certain other foreign jurisdictions now or in the future. It must also be noted that international arbitral awards may generally be enforced in China because China and more than 150 other countries are parties to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. After conducting an enormous amount of business and investment activities overseas, many Chinese people and companies now have assets in many foreign countries, and as such, when a U.S. company contemplates suing a Chinese company, in many cases the first thing the U.S. company and its U.S. counsel will do is to locate where the Chinese company has assets and then research whether the country (or countries) where the Chinese company has assets will enforce U.S. judgment. For example, if a Chinese company has assets in Australia or England, if the U.S. company can obtain a money judgment against the Chinese company in the U.S., the U.S. company likely will be able to "convert" that U.S. judgment to an Australian or English judgment, then use the judgment to collect on the Chinese company's assets in Australia and England. Moreover, some U.S. and other foreign judgments may be valid for more than 10 years and can have lasting adverse effects on Chinese companies' overseas investments and operations. Even if a Chinese company currently does not have any assets or business outside of China, an outstanding judgment may be enforced against the company when it begins acquiring assets or conducting business and investment activities outside China. For example, the assets they may acquire in a foreign jurisdiction may be subject to attachment and, in

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


some cases, the Chinese companies' overseas business activities (such as sales, mergers, acquisitions and initial public offering activities) may also be affected by outstanding judgments against them. For the reasons mentioned above, Chinese companies should not avoid dealing with cross-border disputes when they arise.

3. KNOW HOW TO EFFECTIVELY USE PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE As mentioned above, each jurisdiction has its own unique legal and regulatory environment, so when crossborder disputes arise, they usually involve legal issues of more than one jurisdiction. Therefore, when Chinese companies face cross-border disputes, they should seek professional assistance. The importance of using professional assistance applies even when Chinese companies are resolving crossborder disputes in China. Unlike domestic dispute resolution matters, Chinese companies suing a foreign party in a Chinese court or arbitral tribunal should seek advice, in advance, on how they may enforce a Chinese court judgment or arbitral award in a foreign jurisdiction. With such advice, Chinese companies may determine whether the foreign party has assets in China or not and, if not, where and how they may enforce their Chinese judgment or arbitral award against the foreign party outside of China. With respect to those issues, particularly the issues of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, if Chinese companies have not obtained proper and timely advice and assistance on the issues, they may be unable to cure certain problems afterward. For example, U.S. laws require that, for a Chinese court judgment to be recognized and enforced in the U.S., that a Chinese company suing a person in the U.S. must serve the summons and complaint on such person in accordance with the specific U.S. rules and procedures or international treaty. If the Chinese company failed to properly serve the summons and complaint at the beginning of a lawsuit, the U.S. court may refuse to recognize and enforce a Chinese court judgment in the U.S. Obviously, such problems of the service of process cannot be cured at the enforcement stage by the Chinese companies. Therefore, if Chinese companies fail to comply with certain rules and requirements of a foreign country when suing a foreign party in China, they may end up with a winning judgment that is worthless because it would not be enforced overseas. When Chinese companies are being sued in a foreign court or arbitral tribunal, they should seek professional assistance in order to make suitable procedural or substantive replies and defenses. For example, a U.S. court may have no jurisdiction over a Chinese company under the U.S. laws in certain circumstances (i.e., the particular U.S. court has no power and authority to hear a case against a Chinese party in its court). In such a case, the Chinese party may choose not to answer the lawsuit in the U.S. court and wait for the U.S. party to sue it in China. However, if a Chinese company was not aware of such a rule and chose to answer the complaint, then appeared in the U.S. court, it will be deemed to have voluntarily agreed to the jurisdiction of the U.S. court. Under the U.S. laws, there are constitutional limitations on a U.S. court's power and authority to hear a lawsuit filed against a foreign or out-of-state defendants. Following the landmark 1945 decision of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, along with many other U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions over more than 70 years, a U.S. court may exert personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant (such as a Chinese company) only if that foreign defendant has sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state where the U.S. court is situated such that the particular suit "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." What constitutes sufficient minimum contacts by Chinese companies with the forum state and may subject the Chinese company to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court for a particular lawsuit filed against it is a complex but very important question, as the answer to that question will determine whether the Chinese defendant will need to answer

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


said lawsuit in the U.S. court. Indeed, because of its importance, the issue of the court's jurisdiction over the defendant is often an issue fought fiercely by the parties at the outset of a U.S. lawsuit. It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued stricter interpretation in recent years about what constitutes "sufficient minimum contacts" for a U.S. court to exercise jurisdiction over case filed against foreign defendants in the U.S. court. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown that a U.S. court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation to hear any and all claims against it only when the foreign cooperation's affiliation with the state in which the suit is brought are so constant and pervasive "as to render essentially at home." The holding was reaffirmed in 2014 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman. Indeed, after the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation on the laws regarding when a U.S. court has general jurisdiction over foreign defendants, there had already been cases in which foreign defendants (including Chinese companies) successfully invoked these more restrictive opinions to avoid being subject to the U.S. lawsuits or the U.S. court's jurisdiction. Therefore, when Chinese companies are sued in U.S. courts, they should consult their U.S. counsel and carefully examine the jurisdictional issues before deciding whether and how they should answer the U.S. lawsuit. In summary, when Chinese companies are dealing with cross-border disputes both within and outside of China, they should seek professional assistance in order to protect their rights and positions. After years of experience, many multinational companies are well aware of the importance of using professional assistance when facing cross-border disputes. If Chinese companies do not arm themselves with professional legal counsel, the results of that shortcoming will more than likely be obvious.

4. PREVENT CROSS-BORDER DISPUTES FROM ARISING The scale and types of business and investment activities that many Chinese companies have been engaging in the U.S. and other foreign countries has expanded dramatically during the last several years, and it is important that Chinese companies understand the relevant legal, regulatory and cultural environments in which they are doing business. Chinese companies should also try to conduct their business and investment activities in accordance with the laws and regulations of the foreign jurisdiction. They should pay particular attention to countries such as the U.S., where business activities are highly regulated and lawsuits are more prone to occur. It is important that Chinese companies keep in mind the relevant laws and regulations when conducting business in order to avoid any damages as a result of failing to comply with the rules. For example, in the U.S., an unintended comment on the look or figure of an employee made by a supervisor or even a co-worker may result in a discrimination or harassment lawsuit against the company. This may ultimately cause substantial harm to the company's interest and reputation. Many Asian companies that invest in the U.S., such as some Japanese and Korean companies, have already learned very expensive lessons in the past, so Chinese companies should avoid making the same mistakes. In addition, if Chinese companies fail to comply with the various laws of foreign jurisdictions in areas such as labor and employment, consumer protection, workplace safety, environmental protection, product liability, cybersecurity, data protection and privacy, taxation, antitrust, customs and insurance, serious adverse effects to the companies' operation and development in foreign countries may occur. Paying attention to and complying with laws in the areas listed above as well as other relevant laws and regulations will help Chinese companies maintain and grow their business.

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


If Chinese companies can apply the above four-part strategy, they should hold a strong initial position when dealing with a cross-border dispute. Of course, cross-border dispute resolution is not a simple matter and usually involves complicated legal issues of various jurisdictions and different languages and cultures. Nevertheless, if Chinese companies can put forth a strong initial position, they will have a much better chance of tackling the challenges they may encounter during the cross-border dispute resolution process. 1

See "Strategy for Resolving Cross-Border Disputes by Chinese Companies," published by the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Commerce in its Exchange and Cooperation Guide for Economic and Trade Organizations from Both China and Abroad, April 2011

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


中国企业跨国商业纠纷解决策略 作者 蒋尚仁 1

在 2011 年为上海市商务委员会的刊物所写的一篇相关文章中, 我提到由于中国企业继续透过繁忙的商业及投资 活动累积了许多财富,中国企业将面临越来越多的跨国商业纠纷。 而在其后的 7 年中,中国企业的确已经参与到很多的跨国诉讼及仲裁,包括涉及买卖、经销、许可及股东纠纷、 产品责任问题、专利侵权主张、证券相关法律问题等许多不同类型的诉讼及仲裁。跨国商业纠纷的增加对应了中 国经济规模在这七年中几近双倍的增长。随着中国经济的继续成长,中国企业势将继续成为跨国商业诉讼及仲裁 的主要目标。 而在过去多年中中国企业经营事业的法律环境上也发生了许多变化。例如,部分由于中国的广大消费市场及中国 法院在处理知识产权争议的能力及效率的提升,中国法院也逐渐成为跨国公司偏好的专利诉讼攻防战场之一。而 在美国方面,例如,美国联邦最高法院缩紧了关于在何种情况下一美国法院可以在美国诉讼中对外国被告行使管 辖权的法律解释。这些及其他美国、中国及其他管辖区域的法律体系的最近发展都应该是中国企业制定如何在此 新时代中处理跨国商业纠纷的策略需考量的因素。 我们将在由以下四个要点所构成的策略中与读者分享我们的看法,观察及经验,以协助中国企业更好地执行及适 用解决跨国商业纠纷的策略。 一.


虽然在过去多年中许多中国企业已经获得了更多的国际交易经验,许多中国企业所关注的仍然是如何谋取到最有 利的商业条件。很多中国企业都是洽谈好价钱及其他有利商业条件的高手。但是在许多情况下,中国企业对于法 律条款及法律问题(尤其是关于纠纷解决的合同条款)一向没有给到足够的重视。由于文化的关系,中国企业并 不习惯在与外方洽谈潜在生意机会时就直接地谈到该如何处理将来可能发生的商业纠纷。相反地,许多跨国企业 已在国际商场上纵横数十年。这些跨国企业对处理跨国交易所产生的商业纠纷已有相当的经验。 每个法律管辖区域的法律一般仅于其境内适用,即使有些不同国家的某些法律法规看似相同,他们的适用结果可 能完全不同。例如,美国的诉讼证据搜集制度与中国的制度非常不同。因此,如果中国企业能在中国境内解决其 跨国商业纠纷,他们会处于更加有利的地位。中国企业将能依据其所熟悉的法律制度及习惯分析及处理相关问题 并作出更好的决定,也较容易取得与他们有相同文化及语言背景的专业人士的适当协助。 相反地,如果中国企业必须在外国解决他们的跨国商业纠纷,他们将需面对不同的法律体制、规定、语言、文化 及社会环境。因此,即使中国企业有较强的案件,也会受到其他不利因素的影响。此外,中国企业如需在海外处 理跨国商业纠纷,他们将必须投入更多的时间及资源来取得足以协助他们处理其所不熟悉的风险及问题的专业协 助。例如,中国企业一般并不熟悉美国关于当事人应自发地向对方揭露某些证据的证据揭露规定(即使该等证据 的揭露对揭露方不利),如果中国企业没能及时及适当地获得这些问题的咨询,他们可能错误地拒绝进行法律所 规定的证据揭露。而这样的做法,往往会让法院认为中国企业在隐匿证据,而作出不利的推论并判决中国企业败 诉。 此外,即使中国企业能经由适当的协助克服上述不利因素,由于处理纠纷的法官,仲裁人或陪审团成员的背景可 能都与对方相同,中国企业也难期待获得完全公平的对待。在美国,一州的人到另外一州应诉时,往往会被戏称 将在对方的州遭到“就地宰割” – “home cooked”。如果在对方的地盘进行国内诉讼来解决纠纷是存在风险

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


的,中国企业无疑应尽量避免在其他国家解决跨国商业纠纷的风险。因此,如有筹码时,中国企业应首要争取在 中国解决未来可能发生的商业纠纷。而如没有该等商业筹码时,中国企业也应争取在中立的第三地解决商业纠 纷。 虽然在其自己的州及国家进行法律争讼仍然是企业应尊奉的原则,因为许多中国企业已将他们的商业活动及利益 拓展到其他国家并在许多海外市场进行商业竞争,如情况合适的话,中国企业也应考虑在其他法律管辖区域提起 法律诉讼以强化其法律地位及取得对其竞争对手或对方的优势。例如,虽然中国电信设备巨头华为多年来忙于在 美国的法院对其他公司对其提起的专利侵权控诉进行抗辩,它于 2016 年在美国向一个美国通讯商及一个韩国电 子公司提起专利侵权诉讼。有些人认为华为当时想进入美国的智能手机市场,但它了解竞争对手将不会乐见它的 加人。因此,透过主动在美国提起诉讼,华为可能想要传达一个它本身也拥有专利且不会只坐等其他公司对其提 起诉讼的讯息。 还有其他许多企业在其它国家提起诉讼以强化其法律地位或获取策略优势的例子。例如,2016 年,加拿大的知 识产权公司 WiLan 在中国南京的法院对日本的 Sony 公司提起专利侵权诉讼。2017 年,一家美国通讯巨头公司在 中国对 Apple 提起多个诉讼,要求支付许可费及禁止在中国销售 Apple 产品。事实上,中国法院已经成为全球保 护知识产权的一个重要战场。很显然地,如果被告需仰赖中国广大的市场来销售其产品或需在中国生产产品以行 销世界,一公司如能在中国法院赢得对该被告的诉讼的话,势将带给该公司许多优势。 因此,在这个越来越环环相扣的环球商业市场中,中国企业应与其中国、美国及其他国际律师一起协作以制定最 适合他们的诉讼策略。当面对跨国商业法律纠纷时,中国企业虽然仍应首要争取在中国境内进行法律争讼,但如 在海外对对方发起诉讼可以让中国企业取得某些重要策略优势的话,中国企业也不应迟疑地在美国或其他国家发 起该等诉讼。 二.


当然中国企业无法期待所有跨国商业纠纷都将可在中国境内或他们所偏好的管辖区域内解决。事实上,除了合同 纠纷当事人可事先约定在那个管辖区域解决他们的纠纷外,还有许多其它情形当事人是无法事先约定如何及在那 里解决纠纷的。例如,一家中国企业所生产的手机备用电池被卖给了一个在纽约的手机用户,而如果该备用电池 存在产品瑕疵,导致起火烧掉了该手机用户的房子并造成人员受伤,该位美国纽约的用户最有可能直接在美国纽 约州的法院对中国企业、美国进口商、产品经销商及所有其它相关当事人提起诉讼。因此,如果产品在海外造成 损害,中国企业是无法排除在海外被诉的可能的。 当中国企业没有选择必须在海外解决其与他方的商业纠纷时,他们不应逃避。有些企业在面对这样的情况时,认 为外国法院或仲裁庭将不会公平对待他们或甚至歧视他们而决定对纠纷置之不理,另外也有些企业认为对方即使 在外国管辖区域赢了诉讼或仲裁,这些外国的法院判决或仲裁裁决对他们也没影响。 不幸的是,这些错误的理解及认知往往造成中国企业错失了处理跨国商业纠纷的关键时机。例如,有些中国企业 在美国法院被诉时,选择不参加应诉,而该拒绝应诉在很多情况下导致法院对其做出不利的缺席判决。必须注意 的是,即使中美之间没有相互承认及执行判决的条约,中国法院有逐渐同意承认美国法院判决的趋势。事实上, 在 2017 年 6 月,中国湖北省武汉中级人民法院作出了一个承认洛杉矶高等法院所做出的民事判决。而在 2018 年 9 月,上海第一中级人民法院做出一个承认美国伊利诺伊州北部区域联邦地方法院所做出的判决的裁决。这两个 中国法院的裁决显示中国法院在美国法院先前有承认中国法院判决的基础下可以承认美国州或联邦法院的判决。 此外,即使一个美国法院判决未能获得中国法院的承认,美国法院判决的胜诉方也可试图对中国当事人现在或将 来在美国或或其他外国法律管辖区域拥有的资产进行执行。另外,必须提请注意的是,依据中国和超过 150 个国

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


家所签署的国际间关于仲裁裁决承认及执行的纽约公约,国际仲裁裁决一般是可以获得中国法院的承认并在中国 境内执行的。 在海外从事大量商业及投资活动后,许多中国个人及企业现在许多国家都拥有资产,因此,当一个美国公司考虑 对中国企业提起诉讼时,许多情况下,美国公司和他们的律师首先都会先确认中国企业在那里有资产,并研究那 些中国企业拥有资产的国家将会执行美国的判决。例如,如果中国企业在澳大利亚或英国有资产时,如果美国公 司可以在美国取得对中国企业胜诉的判决,美国公司可能可以将美国的判决“转换”成一个澳大利亚或英国的判 决,然后利用该判决对中国企业在澳大利亚或英国的资产进行执行。 此外,某些美国和其他外国的判决的效力可能长达十年以上,并可对中国企业海外的投资及运作产生长期不利的 影响。即使这些中国企业目前没有可供执行的海外资产,当他们开始在海外取得资产或进行商业及投资活动时, 这些尚未执行完毕的海外判决仍可对其执行。例如,他们将来在海外取得的资产时可能会遭到扣押。此外,在某 些情况下,中国企业在海外的商业活动(例如销售、并购及上市申请活动)也可能受到这些尚未执行完毕的海外 不利判决的影响。 综上理由,当跨国商业纠纷发生时,中国企业不应该逃避,而应加以处理。



如前所述,每个法律管辖区域有其独特的法律及法规环境。因此,一旦发生跨国商业纠纷时,往往牵涉到一个以 上法律管辖区域的法律问题。因此,中国企业遇到跨国商业纠纷时应该寻求专业的咨询及协助。 这个重要的策略对中国企业即使在中国境内解决跨国商业纠纷时也一样适用。与国内争议解决事项不同,中国企 业在中国境内的法院或仲裁庭起诉外方时,应事先取得有关他们未来如何在国外执行中国法院判决及仲裁裁决的 咨询。有了这些咨询后,中国企业可判断外方是否在中国拥有资产。如没有的话,他们将如何在中国境外执行他 们的中国法院判决或仲裁裁决。 对这些问题(尤其是对外国判决的承认及执行的问题),如果中国企业没有得到合适和及时的咨询和协助的话, 发生问题后可能无法事后加以补救。例如,美国的法律规定如果外国法院判决要在美国申请执行的话,一个中国 企业在中国法院对美国被告提起诉讼后,应依特定美国法律及国际公约的规定送达相关诉状给该被告。如中国企 业的原告在提起诉讼时未能适当送达诉讼文书给被告,美国法院可以拒绝承认中国法院判决及拒绝在美国执行该 判决。很明显的,中国企业在执行阶段已没法补救该等送达的问题。因此,一个中国企业在中国起诉一外方时, 如未能遵守外国某些法律规定时,最终可能拿到一个毫无价值的胜诉判决,因为该判决没法在海外被执行。 而中国企业在国外的法院或仲裁庭被告时,也应寻求专业协助,以在程序及实体上作适当应对及抗辩。例如,在 某些情况下,美国法院对中国被告可能没有管辖权(即该特定美国法院无权审理在其法院对某一中国被告当事人 提起的诉讼)。在该情况下,中国当事人可选择不到美国法院应诉而等待美国当事人到中国对其提起诉讼。不过 如果中国企业不了解该等规则而选择到美国法院应诉的话,它将被视为自愿同意接受美国法院的管辖。 根据美国法律,美国法院审理对外国或外州被告提起的诉讼的权力及权限是受宪法规定限制的。根据 1945 年的 重要的国际鞋业一案(International Shoe Co. v. Washington)及其后 70 多年来许多其他美国联邦最高法院及 下属法院的判例,美国法院只有在外国被告(例如中国被告)与法院所在的当州存在足以使该法院对该外国被告 行使管辖权也不会被认为“有违传统公平及重大正义概念”的“最低限度接触”,才对该外国被告有管辖权。而 何种情况可构成中国企业与该法院所在的州间存在足够的最低限度接触,而造成中国企业就该诉讼应受到该美国

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


法院管辖是一个复杂及非常重要的问题,而该问题的答案将决定中国企业是否需对在该美国法院提起的诉讼进行 应诉。事实上,由于它的重要性,法院对被告是否拥有管辖权的问题经常是美国诉讼开始时诉讼各方当事人激烈 争斗的一个问题。 需要注意到的是,最近几年来,美国联邦最高法院对何种情况构成了“足够的最低限度接触”而使美国法院对在 其法院中对外国被告提出的诉讼具有管辖权的情况做出了更严格的解释。在 2011 年,美国联邦最高法院在 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown 一案中做出,美国法院只有在外国公司与被提起诉讼的该 州存在“本质上可造成该州可视为外国被告的家”的持续及普遍接触时,美国法院才有权对所有在该州对其提起 的诉讼具有管辖权。这个判决在 2014 年的 Daimler AG v. Bauman 一案再度得到美国联邦最高法院的确认。事实 上,在美国联邦最高法院对何种情况下美国法院对外国被告具有一般管辖权的法律做出了更严格的解释后,已有 外国被告或当事人(包括中国公司)在一些案件中成功地引用这些更严格的意见而避免被涉入美国诉讼或受到美 国法院的管辖。因此,当中国企业在美国法院中被告时,他们应该咨询他们的美国律师并谨慎分析管辖权问题以 决定是否及如何因回应美国的诉讼。 综上,当中国企业需在中国及海外处理及解决其跨国商业纠纷,中国企业应当寻求专业协助,以维护其权利及取 得有利地位。透过长期的经验,许多跨国企业已经充分了解专业协助的重要性。如果中国企业不能透过专业协助 来武装自己,明显地将会面对不利的后果。 四. 防范于未然 中国企业在美国及其他国家从事的商业及投资活动的规模及形态在过去许多年中有重大的增加及改变, 因此, 另一重要应对策略是中国企业应了解其所经营事业当地的相关法律、法规及文化环境。中国企业并应依据该等外 国的法律及法规规定进行其商业及投资活动。尤其在某些高度法律规范及在文化上较易兴讼的国家(例如美 国),中国企业应更加注意。中国企业应在进行商业活动时随时留意相关法律法规,以避免因违反法规而可能产 生的任何损失。 例如在美国,一个企业的主管甚或同事对另一员工的容貌或身材不经意的评论可能使该企业招来歧视或骚扰的告 诉,最终并可造成公司重大的财务及商誉损失。这点,到美国投资的一些日本及韩国等亚洲企业早期已经得过许 多非常昂贵的教训,中国企业应避免犯同样的错误。 此外,如中国企业未能遵循外国管辖区域内关于劳动及雇佣、消费者保护、职场安全、环保、产品责任、网络安 全、信息保护及隐私、税务、反垄断、海关、保险等各种法律的话,都可能对企业在外国的投资及发展产生重大 不利影响。对上述及其他相关法律法规的遵循将有助中国企业维持及增长其事业。 中国企业如果能够运用包括以上四个要点的策略,他们应可在处理跨国商业纠纷一事上站稳坚强的第一步。当 然,跨国商业纠纷解决不是一件简单的事,并且涉及不同法律管辖区域复杂的法律问题及不同的语言及文化。但 中国企业如能站稳了坚强的第一步,在跨国商业纠纷处理的过程中,他们将能有机会更好地处理他们可能面对的 挑战。


请见上海市商务委员会 2011 年 4 月所出版的“海内外经贸机构国际交流合作指南”中“如何应对跨国及跨境商业及投资纠纷”一文。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


The California Consumer Privacy Act Is Coming. Is Your Business Ready? By John P. Kern and David I. Holtzman

California signed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) into law on June 28, 2018, and it will take effect on Jan. 1, 2020. So far, the CCPA grants California consumers new rights with respect to the collection and use of their personal information. The sweeping new law will impact the business practices of almost all medium and large companies – irrespective of whether they have any physical presence in California. Just as companies struggled to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the European Union's data privacy law adopted in 2018, they may struggle to comply with the CCPA. In fact, the CCPA may replace the GDPR as the de facto worldwide standard under a highest common denominator theory (i.e., the idea that because certain of its provisions creates a higher standard of privacy protection than the GDPR, companies will have to establish protocols that meet the CCPA). Highlights of CCPA, include: 

The CCPA imposes a privacy regime in California that is unlike anything seen in the United States.

The CCPA establishes new privacy rights applicable to personal information that a covered commercial enterprise collects, stores, discloses or sells about California consumers. "Personal information" is broadly defined to include anything that could be associated with a California consumer.

The CCPA empowers California consumers (defined broadly) with unparalleled new rights to demand information, to opt-out of a company's practices, and to delete his/her profiles within companies' systems. Companies may not discriminate against these consumers.

Pending legislation in the California legislature (SB 561) may dramatically expand the private right of action provisions. This means that individual California consumers may bring suit against companies for violation of the CCPA. This legislation also may end the current 30-day cure period for CCPA violations.

Companies who violate the CCPA are exposed to substantial risk.

WHAT DOES THE CCPA DO? The CCPA gives "consumers" (defined as any person who is a California resident) four basic rights in relation to their personal information:

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


1. the right to know, through a general privacy policy and with more specifics available upon request, what personal information a business has collected about them, the source of that information, whether the company has disclosed or sold it, and to whom it was disclosed or sold 2. the right to "opt out" of permitting a business to sell personal information to third parties 3. the right to require a company to delete a consumer's personal information 4. the right to nondiscrimination, that is, the right to receive equal service and pricing from a business, even if the consumer exercises their privacy rights under the CCPA

WHAT IS THE CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO HIS/HER PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE CCPA? Pursuant to the CCPA, a consumer has the right to request that a business which collects a consumer's personal information disclose to that consumer the categories and specific pieces of personal information the business has collected. §1798.100(a), Cal. Civ. Code. Additionally, the CCPA grants a consumer the right to request that a business that sells the consumer's personal information, or that discloses it for a business purpose, disclose to that consumer: 1) the categories of personal information that the business collected about the consumer; 2) the categories of personal information that the business sold about the consumer and the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was sold, by category or categories of personal information for each third party to whom the personal information was sold; and 3) the categories of personal information that the business disclosed about the consumer for a business purpose. §1798.115(a), Cal. Civ. Code. The CCPA grants a consumer the right, at any time, to direct a business that sells personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell the consumer's personal information (i.e., an "opt out" right). The CCPA sets out fairly detailed guidelines about how a company must communicate to consumers the right to opt out, how those companies can deidentify the data they seek to collect to work within the CCPA, and numerous other details about the safe-guarding and treatment of the at-issue data.

WHO IS A CONSUMER UNDER THE CCPA? Any "consumer," which is defined under the law as "a natural person who is a California resident [as defined in tax provisions], however identified, including by any unique identifier." Pursuant to the relevant tax provisions, a consumer includes: 1) every individual who is in California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose, and 2) every individual who is domiciled in California who is outside of California for a temporary or transitory purpose.

WHAT IS PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE CCPA? Under the CCPA, "personal information" means any information that identifies, relates to, describes or is capable of being associated with, a particular individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name, signature, social security number, physical characteristics or description, address, telephone

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


number, passport number, driver's license or state identification card number, insurance policy number, education, employment, employment history, bank account number, credit card number, debit card number or any other financial information, medical information or health insurance information. "Personal information" does not include publicly available information that is lawfully made available to the general public from federal, state or local government records, or which is generally publicly available information, or which has been deidentified or is merely aggregate consumer information (or about a half-dozen other exceptions).

ARE THERE EXEMPTIONS? There are a limited number of exemptions available. For example, it is expressly provided that the obligations imposed on businesses by the CCPA do not restrict a business' ability to "collect, use, retain, sell, or disclose consumer information that is deidentified or in the aggregate consumer information." §1798.145(a)(5), Cal. Civ. Code. Accordingly, some companies may choose to implement deidentification protocols as a means of compliance rather than deal with the complexity and burden of responding to an unknown – and potentially unlimited – number of consumer requests for information, profile deletion and the like. In addition, the CCPA does not apply to protected or health information that is collected by a covered entity governed by federal health privacy laws (e.g., the HIPAA) or financial information governed by certain federal privacy laws. §1798.145(c), Cal. Civ. Code.

WHO MUST COMPLY WITH THE CCPA? The CCPA defines a "business" as any commercial (for-profit) entity that does business in the State of California and meets any one of the following thresholds on an annual basis: 1) generates a gross revenue of more than $25 million 2) buys, receives, sells, or shares "personal information" of 50,000 or more "consumers, households, or devices", or 3) derives 50 percent or more of its revenue from the sale of "personal information" It may seem like this definition will not cover your small business located outside of California; however, a physical presence in California is not required. If you make an online "sale" in California and you buy, receive, sell or share at least 50,000 "pieces" of "personal information" (defined very broadly) – whether collected from California "consumers" or not – you will have to comply with the CCPA. If you make an online sale and your business model primarily involves "selling" information to advertisers, you will also be subject to the CCPA. To underscore the scope, consider this example: If you are any business, anywhere in the world, that does any business in California, you generate more than $25 million per year in gross revenue and you store on your company's servers or in its files an email address – a single email address – of one person who can claim to be a resident of California, then your company must be CCPA compliant.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Failure to comply could subject you to a lawsuit, investigation by the California Attorney General and massive financial liability.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CCPA? 1. The California Attorney General primarily enforces the CCPA, and it may pursue statutory damages of up to $7,500 for each violation. 2. The CCPA also provides a private right of action that allows consumers to seek, either individually or as a class, statutory or actual damages and injunctive and other relief. Before Feb. 22, 2019, this private lawsuit provision did not seem particularly dangerous for companies, because it was limited to data breaches – not mere noncompliance with the CCPA's strict terms. Moreover, all litigants were required to provide written notification to companies of suspected data breaches, and the companies had a 30-day "cure period" to resolve any problems. On Feb. 22, 2019, SB 561 was introduced in the California legislature to dramatically amend key elements of the CCPA. This proposed amendment, if adopted, will 1) expand the private right of action (right to file civil lawsuits) under the CCPA to cover any noncompliance, and 2) reduce two protective measures for companies contained in the current version of the CCPA. Expansion of the Private Right of Action Under the proposed Amendment, consumers could bring lawsuits not only for data breaches (e.g., unauthorized theft, access), but for mere noncompliance with the CCPA. Under the current version, only the Attorney General had this expanded right. Elimination of Right to Specific Attorney General Guidance The proposed amendment would eliminate the current option for a business or third party to seek the opinion of the Attorney General for guidance on how to comply with the CCPA. The amendment would strike this option and instead require the Attorney General to publish general public guidance about the law. Elimination of the 30-Day Cure Period Finally, the proposed amendment would eliminate the 30-day cure period currently provided for under the law. There is no date set for a vote on this proposed, significant amendment, but many commentators believe it will be adopted as part of the final law, as it was proposed specifically in response to complaints from voters and consumers that the exiting provisions of the CCPA were too weak and favorable to business. The most significant impact, if the amendment is adopted, will likely be a deluge of class action lawsuits against companies – especially the larger ones – who fail to comply with the requirements of the CCPA.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


IF A BUSINESS COMPLIES WITH GDPR, DOES IT NEED TO CHANGE ANYTHING? The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are rules under European Union (EU) law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA). It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas. The GDPR aims primarily to give individuals control over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international businesses by unifying the regulation within the EU. The GDPR applies to companies based outside the EU, if they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the EU. Both the CCPA and the GDPR apply to businesses located outside their regions, and both are based on themes of consumer right of access and transparency. But there are significant differences in the laws, especially in terms of specific exemptions, and in the processes and protocols that businesses must establish to interface with the consumers who may seek to invoke the laws new entitlements. The following chart compares the requirements of the GDPR and CCPA:




EU personal data processed

California resident's personal data collected

Right to access

Right to access all EU personal data processed

Right to access California personal data collected in last 12 months

Right to portability

Must export and import certain EU personal data in a user-friendly format

All access requests must be exported in user-friendly format, but there is no import requirement

Right to correction

Right to correct errors in EU personal data processed

Not included in CCPA

Right to withdraw consent or otherwise stop processing of EU personal data Right to require a human to make decisions that have a legal effect

Right to opt-out of selling personal data; must include opt-out link on website

Right to stop third-party transfer

Right to withdraw consent for data transfers involving second purposes of special categories of data

Right to opt-out of selling personal data to third parties

Right to equal services and prices

Not required

Discrimination prohibited

No floor or ceiling

Up to $750 for data breaches, but will be expanded to cover any noncompliance if the proposed amendment is adopted

Right to stop processing

Right to stop automated decision making

Private right to action damages

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Not included in CCPA


Regulator enforcement

Ceiling of 4 percent of global annual revenue

No ceiling – $7,500 per violation

IS THE CCPA FINAL? The California Attorney General's Office has just concluded holding multiple public forums and hearings on the CCPA. The Attorney General promoted these forums as an opportunity for the public to participate in the CCPA rulemaking process. The Attorney General anticipates publishing its Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action by fall 2019. The public will have another opportunity to weigh in during the formal public comment period that follows issuance of the draft regulations. Also, the CCPA faces the possibility of being overruled before it is even implemented, as big technology companies have been lobbying heavily for a national data privacy law to pre-empt the CCPA.

WHAT CAN BUSINESSES DO NOW TO PREPARE FOR THE CCPA? Despite the uncertainty that still exist about whether the CCPA may go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, as the stake is very high, companies should start formulating compliance strategies and seek legal guidance as early as possible. Under the direction of licensed California legal counsel, businesses, among other steps, should: 1. evaluate whether the company meets the CCPA thresholds 2. identify possible exemptions that might apply 3. identify and classify the relevant classes of data (consumer personal information) it collects, discloses and/or sells 4. determine whether the company uses consumer personal information for "commercial purposes" and "business purposes" 5. review and modify third-party vendor agreements 6. review and update the company's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy 7. draft California-specific privacy disclosures and "Do Not Sell My Information" disclosure 8. establish opt-out procedures 9. ensure "no discrimination" policies are in place, along with policies to address certain opt-in requirements

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


《加州消费者隐私法案》就要来了。您的企业做好准备了吗? 原文作者 John P. Kern 和 David I. Holtzman 加州于 2018 年 6 月 28 日签署通过了 2018 年《加州消费者隐私法案》(“CCPA”),该法案将于 2020 年 1 月 1 日 生效。目前为止,CCPA 授予了加州消费者有关收集和使用他们个人信息的新的权利。 全新的法律将影响几乎所有中型和大型公司的商业行为––无论他们是否在加州有任何实体存在。正如公司努力 遵守 2018 年欧盟通过的数据隐私法《通用数据保护条例》(“GDPR”)一样,它们可能也会需努力来遵守 CCPA 。事实上,按最高公分母的理论,CCPA 可能会取代 GDPR 而实际上成为全球的标准(即由于 CCPA 的某些条款创 造了比 GDPR 更高的隐私保护标准,公司必须建立相应的做法规则来符合 CCPA 的要求)。 CCPA 的重点包括:

CCPA 在加州建立了一美国前所未见的隐私制度。

CCPA 建立一些新的隐私权,适用于受到管辖的商业企业收集、存储、披露或出售的有 关加州消费者的个人信息。 “个人信息”的定义广泛,包括可能与加州消费者有关的 任何信息。

CCPA 赋予了加州消费者(定义广泛)空前的新权利来索求信息、选择退出公司的做 法、以及删除他/她在公司系统内的个人资料。公司不得歧视这些消费者。

加州立法机构的待立法案(参院 561 法案)可能会巨大地扩大私人的诉讼权利的规定 。这意味着加州的个人可以因公司违反 CCPA 而提起诉讼。该立法也可能终止目前 CCPA 所规定的 30 天改正期。

违反 CCPA 的公司会面临巨大的风险。

CCPA 有哪些作用? CCPA 给予“消费者”(定义为任何加州居民)与其个人信息相关的四项基本权利: 1. 知情权,通过一般隐私政策以及通过请求提供更多细节,了解企业收集的有关他们的个人信息、 信息来源、公司是否披露或出售了该信息、以及披露或出售给谁。 2. 3. 4.

“选择退出”权,即选择自允许企业向第三方出售个人信息的权利的做法中退出 请求删除权,要求公司删除消费者的个人信息 不受歧视权,即使消费者根据 CCPA 行使其隐私权,也有权获得企业的同等服务和定价

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


CCPA 下消费者对其个人信息的权利有哪些? 根据 CCPA,消费者有权要求收集消费者个人信息的企业向该消费者披露该企业收集的个人信息类别和细节。加 州民法第 1798.100(a)条。 此外,CCPA 授权消费者要求销售消费者个人信息或为商业目的披露消费者个人信息的企业向该消费者披露:1) 企业收集的有关消费者的个人信息类别; 2)企业销售的个人信息的类别以及购买个人信息的第三方的类别,按 照卖给每个第三方的个人信息的类别分类; 及 3)企业为了商业目的而披露的有关消费者的个人信息类别。加州 民法第 1798.115(a)条。 CCPA 赋予权消费者可以随时指示向第三方出售关于消费者的个人信息的企业不出售消费者的个人信息的权利( 即“选择退出”权)。 CCPA 规定了相当详细的指导方针,规定公司必须如何与消费者沟通选择退出的权利、这 些公司如何在 CCPA 框架内解除识别他们想要收集的数据、以及有关保障和处理相关数据的许多其他细节。

CCPA 下的消费者包括哪些? 任何“消费者”,[即按税收规定所定义]在法律上被定义为“任何为加州居民的自然人” (不论如何被界定, 包括通过任何独特的界定方式)。根据相关的税收规定,消费者包括:1)除了临时或暂时目的而人在加州的每 一个人,及 2)住所在加州但现因临时或暂时目的人在加州以外的每一个人。

CCPA 下的个人信息包括哪些? 根据 CCPA,“个人信息”是指识别、连结、描述或能够关联到某个人的任何信息,包括但不限于他或她的姓 名、签名、社会安全号码、体型特征或描述、地址、电话号码、护照号码、驾驶执照或州身份证号码,保险单编 号、教育、就业、工作经历、银行帐号、信用卡号、借记卡号或任何其他财务信息、医疗信息或健康保险信息。 “个人信息”不包括已在联邦、州或地方政府资料记录中合法地向公众提供的公开信息、或是一般公开的信息、 或已经被解除识别的公开信息、或仅仅是消费者的聚合信息(或其他约六个例外的情形)。

有豁免吗? 可用的豁免数量有限。例如,CCPA 明确规定对企业施加的义务不限制企业“收集、使用、保留、出售或披露被 解除识别的消费者信息或消费者的聚合信息”的能力。加州民法第 1798.145(a)(5)条。因此,一些公司可能会 选择实施解除识别的做法作为合规手段,而不须面对需回复一个或可能无限多个不知名的消费者索求信息、档案 删除等等所带来得复杂问题及负担。 此外,CCPA 不适用于受联邦健康隐私法规(例如 HIPAA)管辖的组织收集的受保护的或与健康有关的信息,或受 某些联邦隐私法管辖的财务信息。加州民法第 1798.145(c)条。

谁必须遵守 CCPA? CCPA 将“企业”定义为在加州开展业务并且年度符合以下任何一个门槛的任何商业(营利性)实体: 1)产生超过 2500 万美元的总收入 2)购买、收受、出售或分享 5 万个或更多“消费者、家庭或设备装置”的“个人信息”,或

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


3)其 50%或更多的收入系通过销售“个人信息”所产生 这个定义看来将似乎不会涵盖位于加州以外的小型企业;但其实没有要求在加州需有实体的存在。如果您在加州 进行网络“销售”,并且您购买、收受、出售或分享至少 5 万条“个人信息”(非常广泛地定义)––无论是否 从加州的“消费者”处收集,您将必须遵守 CCPA。如果您进行网络销售并且您的商业模式主要涉及向广告商“ 销售”信息,您也将受到 CCPA 的约束。 为了强调 CPPA 涵盖的主体范围,请考虑以下示例:如果您是世界任何地方的任何企业、在加州开展业务、您年 的总收入将超过 2500 万美元、并且您在公司的服务器或其文件中储存了任何一个可以声称自己是加州居民的人 的电子邮件地址 — 即使只有一个电子邮件地址,那么您的公司必须遵守 CCPA。不遵守规定可能会给您带来诉 讼、加州总检察长的调查以及巨额财务责任。

不遵守 CCPA 的风险有哪些? 1.

加州总检察长主要执行 CCPA,并且对于每次违规都可能要求高达 7500 美元的法定赔偿金。

2. CCPA 还提供私人诉讼权,允许消费者单独或作为集体寻求法定或实际损害赔偿以及禁令和其他救 济。在 2019 年 2 月 22 日之前,这种私人诉讼条款对公司来说似乎并不特别危险,因为它仅限于数据泄 露––而非对 CCPA 的严格的条款的违法。此外,所有诉讼当事人都必须向涉嫌数据泄露的公司提供书面 通知,且公司有 30 天的“改正期”来解决任何问题。 2019 年 2 月 22 日,加州立法机关提出了参院 561 法案,以重大修改 CCPA 的关键组成。该提出的修正案如果获 得通过,将 1)扩大 CCPA 下的私人诉讼权(提起民事诉讼的权利),以涵盖任何违规行为,及 2)减少当前版本 的 CCPA 中包含的公司的两项保护措施。 扩大私人诉讼权 根据提出的修正案,消费者不仅可以针对数据泄露(例如,未经授权的盗窃、获取)提起诉讼,还可以对任何不 遵守 CCPA 的行为提起诉讼。根据目前的版本,只有总检察长有这项扩大的权利。 取消特定总检察长指导权 提出的修正案将取消当前企业或第三方可以征求总检察长意见以获得有关如何遵守 CCPA 的指导的选择。修正案 取消了这一选择,而是要求总检察长公布有关该法的一般公众指导。 取消 30 天的改正期 最后,提出的修正案将取消目前法律规定的 30 天改正期。 关于这项提议的重大修正案的投票还没有确定日期,但许多评论员认为它将作为最终法律的一部分被采纳,因为 它是专门针对选民和消费者抱怨 CCPA 的现有条款太弱了且对企业有利而提出的。如果修正案获得通过,最重要 的影响可能是针对不遵守 CCPA 要求的公司的集体诉讼––特别是较大公司––将会迅速增加。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


如果企业符合 GDPR,是否需要做出任何改变? 《通用数据保护条例》(“GDPR”)是欧盟(“EU”)关于欧盟和欧洲经济区(“EEA”)内所有个人数据保护 和隐私的法律规则。它还对从欧盟和欧洲经济区输出个人数据进行规范。 GDPR 主要旨在通过统一欧盟内部的法 规,使个人能够控制其个人数据,并简化国际商务的监管环境。如果欧盟以外的公司收集或处理位于欧盟内的个 人的个人数据,则 GDPR 也同样适用。 CCPA 和 GDPR 两者都适用于位于其管辖区域以外的企业,两者的主旨都是消费者获取权和透明度。但是,法律本 身存在重大差异,尤其是在特定豁免方面,以及在企业必须建立其与可能寻求援引法律新权利的消费者互动的流 程及做法规定方面。

下图比较了 GDPR 和 CCPA 的要求:








获得过去12个月内收集的加州个人信 息的权利


必须用对用户友好的方式输出和输入 某些欧盟个人信息

所有获取请求必须用对用户友好的方式输 出,但是没有输入方面的要求





撤销同意的权利或者其它停止处理欧 盟个人数据的权利

选择不被销售个人信息的权利;必须将选 择退出的链接发布在网上


要求自然人做出有法律效力决定的权 利



撤销同意转让包括特别类别数据的第二种目 的的权利

选择个人信息不被销售给第三方的权 利






数据泄漏最高750美元,如果提案通过,会被扩 展至涵盖任何违规




Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


CCPA 确定了吗? 加州总检察长办公室刚刚结束了关于 CCPA 的多个公共论坛和听证会。总检察长将这些论坛作为公众参与 CCPA 规 则制定过程的机会进行宣传。总检察长预计将在 2019 年秋季之前发布其《监管行动提案通知》。在发布条例草 案之后的正式公众意见征询期内,公众将有另一次机会提出意见。此外,CCPA 面临着在实施之前被推翻的可能 性,因为大型科技公司一直在大力游说通过取代 CCPA 的全国性数据隐私法律。

企业可以做些什么来为 CCPA 做准备? 尽管对于 CCPA 是否能在 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效仍然存在不确定性,公司应该开始制定合规策略并尽早寻求法律指 导,因为风险很大。在有加州资格的法律顾问的指导下,企业采取的步骤包括但不限于: 1.

评估公司是否符合 CCPA 门槛

















Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Mexico – The Gateway for Investments in America by Chinese Companies By Alejandro Landa Thierry This article provides an analysis and legal considerations in relation to the opening of the Mexican market to the People's Republic of China (China), seen as an alternative to carry out business and investments, derived from the commercial relationship between China and the United Mexican States (Mexico), and the potential Mexico has as a gateway to the other countries such as the United States of America (U.S.). Thus, Mexico represents an attractive option for Chinese investors, by virtue of the current legal and regulatory framework and based on government's projections regarding the Mexican economy. Therefore, here are general considerations regarding 1) the Mexican political and constitutional system, as well as its economic history in recent decades, 2) the general regulations applicable to be taken into account in order to establish and invest in Mexico, and 3) the business opportunities that, in our experience, have been attractive to any investor in general and, specifically, that may be attractive to Chinese investors. Chinese investors that are mainly eyeing U.S. markets may also benefit from investing and landing their businesses in Mexico, because of various reasons. Said reasons may be summarized as follows:  Mexico is a production forum with a global, wide-ranging approach  Mexico has also a privileged geographical location; being the 14th largest territory in the world, with a wide biodiversity and an increasingly large and modern logistics infrastructure  in terms of its institutional policy and macroeconomic aspects, Mexico is a stable and reliable country with political stability  on the macroeconomic side, the Mexican government has a firm commitment with the autonomy of the monetary policy, a flexible exchange rate and a robust banking system; deriving in an open economy – one of the most open and competitive in the world Moreover, Mexico continues to consolidate through its export industry by virtue of the execution of a large number of free trade agreements and a strengthened, but friendly, legal framework applicable to any direct investment in Mexico, resulting in a series of benefits such as, inter alia, tax, tariffs and customs benefits.

Mexican Political and Constitutional System Mexico is formed as a republic, democratic, federal and secular; composed of free, autonomous and sovereign federative entities (or States) – and these, formed by Municipalities. Such States are united in a federation established according to the principles of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos or CPEUM). The government is divided in three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The representation of the people is given through a multiparty system; all regulated by autonomous electoral institutions. There are also autonomous governmental bodies that serve as counterbalances in specific areas because of their level of specialization in a specific topic, such as Mexican Central Bank (Banco de México) or Federal Telecommunications Institute (Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones). The changes that have occurred in Mexico as a result of political alternation have not only been in the Executive branch, but also in the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Mexican Economy In recent decades, the Mexican economy has experienced at least three periods of uneven growth. The first, until the early 1970s, was characterized by accelerated industrial growth. After stagnation during the Great Depression, the country enjoyed expansion at a pace that changed the economy landscape. Further, urbanization gave Mexico its present structure, the active population concentrated in industry, and the agricultural sector lost weight in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Moreover, oil became the king of the economy and with such oil as given as a guarantee, a pyramid of public and private debts was generated and developed, which consolidated a rentier State unconcerned about building a modern and efficient tax system. In 1989, Mexico joined the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) as the first steps toward a more liberalized economy. Finally, the third period includes the next two decades (1990s and 2000s). The recovery of the Mexican economy has been possible based on macroeconomic stabilization policies, structural reforms, privatization of companies and public services, together with a growing integration into the world market. The most notable milestone has been the North American Free Trade Agreement (Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte or NAFTA) signed in 1992, between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, which came into force on 1994. Subsequently, trade liberalization continued and several free trade agreements were signed with various Latin American countries, Japan and the European Union (EU) during said decades.1 During this period, the Mexican economy became less reliant on oil exports and increased significantly its volume of exports of manufactured goods. The most significant changes in the Mexican economic landscape since those decades, are the negotiations with the Asian and American Economies under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the economic reforms on telecommunications and energy (opening the energy sector to private investment on specific activities that were before reserved to the Mexican State), and the conclusion of negotiations with the EU and with the NAFTA countries to renegotiate/update the existing agreements (NAFTA or USMCA – as defined below – is expected to enter into force on January 2020, and the new administration participated in such negotiations, providing assurances of a free trade policy continuance). As of today, the Mexican economy is a mixture of diverse industries that have benefited by virtue of the expansion and growth of infrastructure, making Mexico one of the most open countries to free trade and foreign investment, with a focus on exports growth.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT APPLICABLE LAW Overview of Legal Framework Mexico remains an attractive foreign investment destination with strong emphasis in the manufacturing, automotive and infrastructure sectors. In 2016, large construction projects in the automotive industry and the ongoing bidding processes within the oil and gas and power industries derived from the recent energy reform have projected a steady growth in the total direct foreign investment in the country. Chinese investors seeking to start a business in Mexico face a legal framework which is the result of a liberalization and investment-strengthening process that started in the past decades. Generally, the law applicable to foreign investments in Mexico is open and friendly. It should be noted that the Mexican legal system has been subject to a number of legislative and constitutional amendments in recent years.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


These legal reforms have updated almost every level of regulation relevant to economic activities, most notably in the areas of energy, telecommunications, financial services, tax, antitrust, education and labor. The General Corporations Law (Ley General de Sociedades Mercantiles or LGSM) has been recently amended to simplify incorporation and compliance procedures, to update rules applicable to the preferred forms of business organization and to introduce a new one-person corporation. In connection with Chinese investments in Mexico, there are clear signs of opportunity for Chinese funds and companies to invest in recent infrastructure announcements such as the Mayan Train or the New Santa Lucia Airport. There could also exist an interest in increasing trade relations with Mexico given the protective measures adopted by the United States against China.

Potential Legal Risks and Obstacles Thus, Chinese – and any foreign – investors need to comply with specific obligations under the Foreign Investment Law (Ley de Inversión Extranjera or LIE) and the Regulation of the Foreign Investment Law and of the National Registry of Foreign Investments (RNIE) (Reglamento de la Ley de Inversión Extranjera y del Registro Nacional de Inversiones Extranjeras or LIE Regulation). To start a business in Mexico, investors are required to 1) request authorization to the Ministry of Economy (Secretaría de Economía), 2) register with RNIE, and 3) comply with the LIE and LIE Regulation applicable provisions. Chinese investors shall take into account the following applicable laws and regulations and their relevant provisions:  The LIE, Articles 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 17, 17-A, 31, 32 and 37  The LIE Regulation, Articles 1, 21, 37, 38, 40 and 43

Relevant Treaties Please note that foreign investors are protected by certain rights set forth in NAFTA and replicated in the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) provisions, including national treatment, most-favorednation treatment, fair and equitable treatment, and compensation in the case of direct or indirect investment expropriation. Foreign investors may submit to international investment arbitration under NAFTA provisions, and Chinese investors could also raise similar claims under the existing bilateral investment treaty celebrated with Mexico in 2008,2 which is the only bilateral international treaty celebrated between China and Mexico.3 Mexico is an active member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and has ratified the WTO Agreement and its covered agreements. Mexico is subject to the jurisdiction of WTO panels and the WTO Appellate Body. Mexico is a party to more than 29 bilateral investment treaties and 14 free trade agreements containing a chapter guaranteeing the reciprocal protection of investments, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement signed on Feb. 4, 2016. The Mexican government has always been protective and encouraged foreign investment, and has maintained a more important relation with China.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


INCORPORATION OF A COMPANY IN MEXICO It should be highlighted that the Federal Civil Code (Código Civil Federal) sets out the applicable legal provisions to establish and operate civil partnerships (sociedades civiles), and the establishment and operation of business entities (sociedades mercantiles) is regulated in the LGSM. Civil partnerships are companies in which their relevant partners combine resources and efforts in order to achieve a common purpose, that is profit but not considered as commercial trade. On the other hand, business entities are companies in which the partners/shareholders agree to combine their resources and/or efforts, in order to achieve a common purpose, that is profit considered as commercial trade.

Types of Companies The LGSM recognizes the following seven business entities:       

general partnership (sociedad de nombre coleclivo) limited liability partnership (sociedad en comandita simple) limited liability company (sociedad de responsabilidad limitada) stock corporation (sociedad anónima) limited liability stock partnership (sociedad en comandita par acciones) cooperative partnership (sociedad cooperativa) simplified joint-stock company (sociedad por acciones simplificada)

The LGSM organizes and regulates operations of the aforementioned companies, except for the cooperative partnership, which is governed by a special law. The aforementioned companies will be considered Mexican, as long as they are incorporated in Mexico under Mexican law and establishing their corporate domicile within Mexican territory, in spite of their partners' or shareholders' nationality or their capital's source. It is important to take into account that the LGSM allows companies listed in Nos. 1-5 and 7 above to be formed as variable capital companies. The business entity par excellence regulated by the LGSM is the stock corporation. The most common companies incorporated under Mexican law are 1) the stock corporations, and 2) the limited liability companies because of the fact that their respective shareholders or partners have limited liability before the company and third parties, which is limited to the capital contributions made by such shareholders or partners in each company. It is important to note that, in accordance with other special Mexican laws, the aforementioned companies are not the only types of companies existing in Mexico.

Formation of Business Entities The incorporation of all types of business entities and any amendments, modifications or restatements to their bylaws must be notarized by a certifying public officer – either a notary public or a commercial notary. In order to incorporate a business entity, the partners/shareholders must appear before such notary public or commercial notary, whether in person or through an attorney-in-fact with sufficient powers and authority.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Foreign partners/shareholders, who are individuals, may appear personally to incorporate the company provided that they have the appropriate visa document. In the event that said foreign partners/shareholders, whether one or more, could not be able to appear for incorporation procedure, they shall grant a power of attorney in favor of a Mexican national or a foreigner legally in the country, in order to be represented in company's incorporation procedure. The powers of attorney referred to above must be granted before the relevant notary public authorized to practice in accordance with laws applicable to the domicile of the foreign partner/shareholder and subsequently apostilled in accordance with the Convention for Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, dated Oct. 5, 1961.4 Once the power is apostilled,5 it must be notarized before a notary public in Mexico. Once the company is incorporated, the notary public will issue counterparts (testimonios) of the deed by means of which the relevant company's bylaws were notarized, and with such counterparts the company will be able to conduct or obtain certain registrations (e.g., with the Public Registry of Commerce or Registro Público de Comercio or RPC), the RNIE or with Mexican Tax Administration (Servicio de Administración Tributaria).

Incorporation of a Foreign Company's Branch in Mexico Foreign companies can also do business in Mexico through the incorporation of a branch. For such purposes, the relevant foreign company must first obtain an authorization of the Foreign Investment Bureau (Dirección General de Inversión Extrajera) of the Ministry of Economy, in order to be able to register their corporate bylaws with the RPC of the domicile where such branch will be established. The above registration is mandatory given that the LGSM sets forth that foreign companies may only do business once they are registered in the RPC.

PREMISES, FACILITIES, OFFICES AND INDUSTRIAL PLANTS/WAREHOUSES IN MEXICO Determining where to locate a foreign company's premises, facilities, offices or industrial plants/warehouses, is one of the most important decisions an investor must make when investing in Mexico. In order to make the best decision, it will be important to acknowledge 1) the applicable law in the event of acquiring or leasing real estate, and 2) which authorizations shall be obtained prior to installation of any kind of business or industry.

Acquisition It is important to determine the best location to acquire real estate in Mexico before making any offer or purchase. In order to determine it, foreign investors must take into account 1) which States offer the best tax incentives, 2) if the property in concern has proper access to roads, 3) if such property has access to water, gas or electricity supply, as well as other services, 4) if such property is near suppliers and/or clients, and 5) restrictions applicable to foreign individuals, foreign companies and Mexican companies with foreign investment when acquiring real estate. Additionally, all private-owned real estate in Mexico must be registered with the relevant public registry of property. Once the investors have chosen a property to be acquired, they should review the bill of sale and title deed of such property, as well as verify that it is 1) free of any liens or encumbrances, and 2) registered under the name of the person claiming to be the current owner.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


A foreign investor should also check, depending on the property that is planning to acquire, the National Agrarian Registry (Registro Nacional Agrario). In this regard, it is very important to note that ejidal lands are not subject to private ownership and, therefore, any ejidal land purchase agreement will be null, void and unenforceable, as long as such lands are not removed from the ejidal regime by the ejidatarios meeting. Because of the above, in the event of any land acquisition in rural zones, it is crucial to verify with the National Agrarian Registry that the land in concern is not subject to any special agrarian regime. Likewise, foreign investors must check property's land use (uso de suelo) or zoning classification, in order for them to carry out their business. The zoning classifications and subclassifications may vary from municipality to municipality. However, they can be divided into residential, commercial and industrial. Consequently, it is important to verify that the business corresponds to the zoning classification of the property. In addition, the following documents should also be reviewed when acquiring real estate in Mexico:    

receipts evidencing payment of real estate taxes receipts recording payment of water services topographical site surveys and plot plans test soil samples

Thus, a due diligence should be conducted, in order to acknowledge and verify all of the above mentioned requirements, information and documentation.

Leasing Like in any acquisition, when an investor decides to lease real estate, it is important to verify that the property 1) has proper zoning to install business or engage in the desired activities, 2) has the required services to operate its business, 3) is free of any soil and/or subsoil contamination, and 4) is actually owned by the person claiming to be the current owner. Pursuant to the civil codes of each State, in order for a lease agreement to be valid, it typically shall be executed in writing. Although the civil codes generally establish such formality, it is advisable, when not mandatory, to execute or ratify it before a notary public. If tenant should carry out any works and/or adjustments to the property, it is recommended that such works be authorized in writing by the owner before the lease agreement is executed, agreed as precedent condition or a positive covenant upon execution of said agreement. It is also important that the term of the lease be sufficient to allow tenant to recover the investment made in the property, always considering that most State civil codes set time limits to the term of the lease agreements, depending on the asset being leased and its use.

LABOR APPLICABLE LAW Labor Agreements Contracting is one of the most important issues in labor law, since it is from agreements that all of the rights and obligations of an employment relationship emanate, regardless of the form in which the relationship is established. In Mexico, there are two types of labor agreements: 1) the individual employment agreement, and 2) the collective agreement. The individual agreement is normally between a worker and an employer, and the

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


interest is individual. In contrast, the collective agreement is established commonly between unions and employers, and it involves a group interest. Moreover, Article 20 of the Federal Labor Law (Ley Federal del Trabajo or LFT) distinguishes between the concepts of individual employment agreement and a simple labor relationship and establishes that the labor relationship, whatever act originates it, is the provision of personal, subordinated work to a person in return for the payment of wages, while the individual employment agreement, whatever its form or name, is the agreement by which a person is bound to provide to another person personal, subordinated work in return for the payment of wages. However, the individual employment agreement and the labor relationship produce the same effects, since both involve the provision of personal, subordinated service for the payment of a wage as a principal characteristic.

Individual Labor Relations Individual employment agreements and/or employment solicitudes of the worker, with respect to the stipulation of labor conditions referred to in Article 25 of the LFT should, at least, mention the following information:  name, nationality, age, gender, civil status and the domicile of the employee and the employer  type of labor relation, term and conditions of employment Also, there are certain circumstances to take into account when hiring employees in Mexico, inter alia, such as 1) depending on the services rendered, if it is possible to deem the relationship between the persons receiving and rendering services as a labor employment agreement or as services agreement, which will change the applicable law, 2) payment receipts have to include certain items required by law, 3) legal salary discounts of an employee, in accordance with the provisions of Article 110 of the LFT, 4) documents protecting and evidencing control and/or the labor schedule that was registered for the worker, 5) termination of the labor relation, and 6) dismissal of the labor relations by virtue of a justified cause without any responsibility pursuant to Articles 47 and 51 of the LFT. It should be noted that the LFT sets forth diverse provisions in favor of employees, established in order to ensure the benefits that the CPEUM states as their general rights, such as: a) Vacation – In accordance with Article 76 of the LFT, the employees that have more than one year of services shall enjoy an annual period of paid vacations, that cannot be less than six labor days, and shall increase in two labor days after each year, until the aggregate amount meets 12 labor days for the year. b) Vacation bonus – In accordance with Article 80 of the LFT, the employees will have the right to a bonus no less than 25 percent of their salaries during this vacation period. c) Holidays – The LFT sets out that for every six days of work, the employee shall have at least one day of rest, with all due salaries and wages. Also, in accordance with Article 74 of the LFT, the legal holidays are: Jan, 1, first Monday of February, third Monday of March, May 1, Sept. 16, third Monday of November, Dec. 1 every six years, Dec. 25, and other days determined by federal, local and election laws. In the event that the employees work on one of these dates, they will have the right to receive the salary of that day and a double salary for the rendered service.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


d) Annual Christmas Bonus – Article 87 of the LFT sets forth that each employee shall receive an annual Christmas bonus consisting of 15 days salary, that must be paid before Dec. 20. e) Sunday Bonus – The employees that render their services on a Sunday will have the right to an additional bonus of at least 25 percent of the salaries of an ordinary working day.

Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements The union is the association of workers or employers organized for the study, improvement and defense of their respective interests. In turn, the collective bargaining agreement (contrato colectivo de trabajo) is the agreement executed between one or more workers' unions and one or more employers, or one or more employers unions for the purpose of establishing the conditions under which the work of one or more companies or establishments will be performed.

Social Security Any employer would have social security obligations once it has hired employees, and it is advisable to conduct registration of the employees with the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social), as well as with the National Workers' Housing Fund Institute (Instituto Nacional del Fondo de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores). Also, it should be noted that any employer shall create several committees within the company in order to establish and review 1) the annual labor program for safety and hygiene matters, 2) the training plans and programs, 3) a general seniority chart, and 4) the employees annual profit participation.

MEXICAN TAX REGIME As mentioned above, Mexico has a federal system and, just as in all federal systems, there are powers reserved for the federal government, powers reserved for the States or municipalities, and concurrent powers. This federal system is also reflected in the ability to impose taxes in Mexico, since in accordance with CPEUM, certain taxes can only be imposed by the federal government, others can only be imposed by the States, others only by municipalities and others can be imposed by either the federal government or the States. As a result of the above, tax matters in Mexico can be analyzed from three angles: a) federal taxes, b) local taxes, and c) the international aspect. Federal taxes are generally direct taxes, particularly the income tax, the primary failing of which is the relatively small number of taxpayers who must carry the greatest part of the tax burden. In order to avoid the excessive burden that double taxation can cause taxpayers, the federal government has entered into fiscal coordination agreements with each of its States, through which the federal government shares certain revenues with the States, provided that the States do not impose any tax on specified items. As a result, local taxes are minimal, the most common being the real estate tax (for owners of real estate), the payroll tax (on salaries paid to employees) and the real estate purchase tax. In addition, regardless of who imposes the tax, the tax guarantees contained in CPEUM must be respected and, therefore, only taxes that are set forth in law, that respect the economic capacity of the taxpayer, and that

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


do not establish privileged treatments, are legal. As well, all taxes collected must go toward paying for government expenditure. Mexico's participation in the international tax context has been significant, having executed several treaties to avoid double taxation, and others for the exchange of information and the elimination of tariffs.

OPPORTUNITIES IN MEXICO Having said the aforementioned and the position that Mexico has as potential economy, Mexico becomes a real opportunity for foreign investments and an attractive forum for other investors to land and do business. During recent years and deriving from several reforms and amendments to the applicable legal framework, many industrial and manufacturing sectors have growth along with the Mexican economy. Thus, the federal government has stated the creation and implementation of various infrastructure projects.6 In this regard, the new federal administration has stated the launch of certain projects to be considered during its term by all investors planning to do business in Mexico, such as, inter alia, the implementation of the Santa LucĂ­a International Airport, the creation of a cross-state, mid-speed train (Tren Maya) in the Mexican Southeast region, the operationalization of a new oil refinery and the enhancement of several Federal Electricity Commission (ComisiĂłn Federal de Electricidad) power plants. Moreover, Mexico has a great and successful history as a country creating infrastructure and developing several industries, arising from intensification and reinforcement of multiple production and exports schemes with the U.S. As a consequence, Mexico has rapidly increased the participation of foreign investments in all public tenders published by federal and local governments, as well as in the private sector, where Mexico has understood the benefits of creating and enhancing a strong, but comprehensive and attractive, legal and regulatory framework for investors.


Mexico has 12 free trade agreements in place with more than 46 countries, 32 bilateral investment treaties with 33 countries, and nine preferential trade agreements with Latin American countries. 2 Agreement between the government of the United Mexican States and the government of The People's Republic of China on the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments. 3 Mexico and China have celebrated more than 20 bilateral economic international agreements (not treaties) of less relevance related to mining, protection of tequila, technical cooperation, etc. 4 China is a contracting party of this Convention. 5 In the understanding that if a country is not a contracting party to said Convention, said power of attorney shall be first legalized with the Mexican consulate of such granting party's domicile. 6 It is estimated that the National Development Plan 2019-2024 will be published in April 2019.

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


墨西哥 – 中国企业投资美洲大陆的门户 作者 Alejandro Landa Thierry 本文将对这个向中国开放的墨西哥市场进行分析并介绍相关法律要点供读者参考。而墨西哥基于其与中国发展出 的商业关系也成为了一个从事商业及投资活动的好的选择地点,且墨西哥也有作为投资其他国家(例如美国)的 门户的潜力。 凭借其现有的法律及法规结构及政府对墨西哥经济的预估,墨西哥成为了一个吸引中国投资人的选择。因此,根 据我们的经验,以下各点一般而言吸引了任何投资人(尤其是中国投资人):1)墨西哥的政治及宪政体系以及 他最近几十年来的经济发展;2)在墨西哥设立商业及投资所应考虑的一般适用法规; 及 3)商业机会。 而主要放眼美国市场的中国企业也会因为许多原因而受惠于在墨西哥设点进行投资。该等原因摘要如下: 


墨西哥也有优越的地理位置;其有世界第 14 大的领土且态样多元,此外,它有越来越大及现代化的物流 基础设施


在宏观经济面上,墨西哥政府坚定尊奉自由经济体中独立的金融政策、有弹性的汇率及蓬勃的银行体系 – 是世界上最开放及有竞争力的国家之一

此外,墨西哥透过签署为数众多的自由贸易协定及适用于任何向墨西哥进行直接投资的强化但友善的法律架构所 提供的许多优惠(例如税务,关税及通关优惠等)来增强其外销产业。 墨西哥的政治及宪政体制 墨西哥是一个共和、民主、联邦及政教分离的体制,由各自治主权联邦个体(或州)所组成。而州由各城市所组 成。而各州根据墨西哥合众国的宪法(“CPEUM”)联合组成了一个联邦国家。而政府分为行政、立法及司法三大 部门。 人民的代议制定是透过多政党体制形成;并由独立自主的选举机构来规范。另外还有一些因为专精某些议题的独 立运作机构来在特定领域中扮演平衡的角色, 例如墨西哥中央银行或联邦电信局。墨西哥的政治体系的变更不 只体现于在行政机关上,也体现于立法及司法机关。 墨西哥的经济 最近这几十年来,墨西哥至少经历了三段不平稳的增长阶段。首先,是 1970 年代初期前被视为工业增速成长的 时段。在大萧条时代经济萎靡之后,国家享受到一个改变经济面貌的成长速度。另外,都市化带给了墨西哥目前 的结构,即有生产力的人口集中在工业上,而农村在国内生产毛额失去其比重。另外,石油成为经济最重要的支 柱,且在以石油作为后盾的情况下,公共及私人举债逐渐增加,而将不太关注建立一个现代化及有效率的税制且 收人主要靠天然资源的国家强化起来。 1989 年,墨西哥加入了关税及贸易总协定,作为其迈向更自由化经济的第一步。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


最后,第三阶段包括下两个 10 年(1990 年代及 2000 年代)。在宏观经济稳定政策、结构改革、公司及公共服 务的私有化及与世界市场的整合等基础下,墨西哥的经济得以复苏。最显著的里程碑就是美国、加拿大及墨西哥 于 1992 年签署了于 1994 年生效的北美自由贸易协定。其后,墨西哥继续发展贸易自由化并与多个拉美国家、日 1 本及欧盟在该 20 年间签署了多个自由贸易协定。 在本段期间, 墨西哥经济较少依赖石油外销且显著增加其制 造商品出口的数量。 在这数十年以来墨西哥经济面貌最重要的改变是在环太平洋经济合作协议(TTP)下与亚洲及美洲经济体的协 商、对电信及能源的经济改革(将之前能源产业几个特定保留给墨西哥州政府的活动开放给私人投资)、与欧盟 完成协商、及与北美自由贸易协定国家协商及更新现有的协定(如以下所定义的 NAFTA 或 USMCA 将于 2020 年 1 月生效、且参与该等协商的新政府提供了继续自由贸易政策的保证)。 现今,墨西哥的经济由受益于扩大及增长的基础建设而生的多样化的工业所组合而成,使墨西哥成为就自由贸易 及外商投资而言最开放的国家之一,且着重于增长外销。

外国投资适用法律 法律框架的简介 墨西哥仍然是一个吸引外商投资的地点,且其着重制造、汽车及基础设施领域。在 2016 年,汽车工业中大的建 设项目及因最近的能源改革所产生的石油、天然气及电力工业中持续的招标过程反映了墨西哥整体外商投资的稳 定增长。 寻求在墨西哥发展事业的中国投资人将会面对一个经过过去几十年自由化及强化投资过程的法律框架。 一般而言,对外商投资适用的法律都是开放及友善的。墨西哥的法律制度在过去几年经历过几次立法及宪政修 订。 这些法律改革几乎更新了与经济有关的每一法规层面,最显著的体现在能源、电信、金融服务、税务、反垄断、 教育及劳动上。一般公司法(LGSM)最近被更新以简化公司设立及法规遵循程序、更新了适用于受鼓励的商业组 织形式及引进了新的一人公司。 与中国对墨西哥投资有关的是,现明显存在中国基金及公司可投资最近公布的基础建设项目的投资机会,例如 Mayan 火车或新山塔鲁西亚机场项目。此外,在美国采取对中国的保护政策后,可能增加了与墨西哥加强贸易的 兴趣。 潜在的法律风险及障碍 因此,中国及任何外国投资人需遵守外商投资法(LIE)下所规定的特定义务及外商投资法(LIE)施行细则和外 商投资全国登系统(RINE)的规定。 在墨西哥开始经营事业,投资人必须:1)向经济部申请许可; 2) 向外商投资全国登记系统(RINE)进行登 记;及 3)遵守外商投资法(LIE)及外商投资法(LIE)施行细则的相关规定。 中国投资人应考虑到以下适用的法律规则及他们的相关条款: 

外商投资法(LIE)第 1、3、5、7、10、17、17-A、31、32 和 37 条规定

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


外商投资法(LIE)施行细则第 1、21、37、38、40 和 43 条规定

相关条约 需注意的是外国投资人受到北美自由贸易协定(NAFTA)及重述于美国-墨西哥-加拿大协定(USMCA)的特定权利的 保护,包括国民待遇、最惠国待遇、公平及合理待遇、投资遭到直接或间接没收的补偿。外国投资人可依 NAFTA 条款提出国际贸易仲裁,且中国投资人也可以依据 2018 年与墨西哥一起庆祝签署的现有双边投资协定提出类似 2 请求 ,而该协定是墨西哥与中国唯一签署的双边协定。3 墨西哥是世界贸易组织(WTO)的会员,且批准认可了 WTO 协定及其所包含的协议。墨西哥受 WTO 争端解决小组 及 WTO 上诉机构所管辖。墨西哥是包含了相互保护投资章节的 29 个双边投资协定及 14 个自由贸易协定的签署 国,包括 2016 年 2 月 4 日所签署的环太平洋经济合作协议(TPP)。 墨西哥政府一向对外国投资采取保护及鼓励的立场,且与中国维持一个较为重要的关系。

在墨西哥设立公司 需强调的是联邦民法规定了设立及经营民事合伙的适用法律规定,而设立及经营商业组织是规定于一般公司法 (LGSM)。 民事合伙系相关合伙人结合他们的资源及力量以期达成一不被视为商业贸易的利润的共同目的的企业组织。 相反地,商业组织系为相关合伙人/股东同意结合他们的资源及/或力量以期达成一被视为是商业贸易的利润的共 同目的的企业组织。 公司的形式 一般公司法承认了以下7种商业组织形式: 1. 一般合伙 2. 有限责任合伙 3. 有限责任公司 4. 股份公司 5. 有限责任股份合伙 6. 合作合伙 7. 简式合资股份公司 一般公司法规定及规范了上述公司的经营,除合作合伙由另一专法所规范之外。 只要上述公司系在墨西哥依墨西哥法律设立且在墨西哥设有公司住所,不论他们的合伙人及股东的国籍或资金来 源为何,他们都将被视为墨西哥法人。一个重要的事是一般公司法允许上述 1 到 5 及 7 的公司以可变资本公司形 式设立。而一般公司法所规范的公司中被认为最佳的是股份公司。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


依据墨西哥公司法设立的公司最常见的是:1)股份公司;及 2)有限责任公司,因为他们的相关股东或合伙人 对公司及第三人只负有限责任,即就该股东或合伙人对该公司的出资为限负责。 重要需指出的是根据其他墨西哥的特别法,上述公司并非现有墨西哥公司的唯一公司形式。 商业组织设立 设立所有各类商业组织及对其进行任何修订、修改或对组织条款的重述都必须经过一个核证的公职人员的公证 -- 即公证人或商业公证人。 为了设立商业组织,合伙人/股东必须亲自或以透过给与充分授权的代表人的方式出现于该公证人或商业公证人 前。 外国合伙人/股东为个人时,如有适当签证文件可以亲自出现以设立公司。如该等一个或数个外国合伙人或股东 无法在设立程序中亲自出现,他们可授权给墨西哥国民或合法居留于墨西哥的外国人代表他们出现于公司的设立 程序中。 上述授权必须在公证人公证前依据外国合伙人/股东住所地的法律作成,且在之后依据 1961 年 10 月 5 日的“关 4 5 于取消要求外国文书认证的公约”的规定加以验证。 一旦授权书经验证后,它必须于墨西哥在公证人前公证。 一旦公司设立后,公证人将签发公证好的相关公司组织条款的副本,而在有该副本后,公司将可以与公共商业登 记处 (RPC)、外商投资全国登记系统(RINE)或与墨西哥税务管理局进行登记。 在墨西哥进行外国公司分公司的注册 外国公司也可以透过在墨西哥注册分公司的方式在墨西哥进行商业活动。为该目的,相关外国公司必须首先先向 经济部外国投资局取得授权,以使其得以在它所预计设立分公司的住所地的公共商业登记处(RPC)登记其公司 组织条款。由于一般公司法规定外国公司只有在已经完成 RPC 登记后才可进行商业活动,上述登记是强制必要 的。

在墨西哥的公司场地、设施、办公室及工业厂房/仓库 决定在那里设立公司场地、设施、办公室或工业厂房/仓库是投资人在墨西哥投资所需做的最重要的决定之一。 为了要做出最好的决定,必须了解到:1)如取得或租赁不动产时适用的法律;及 2)设立任何商业或产业前应 取得那些授权。 购买 在作任何购买的提议或购买前,重要的是要先决定墨西哥那里是购买不动产最好的地点。为做出该决定,外国投 资人必须考虑到以下几点:1)那一州提供最好的税务优惠,2)相关土地是否有合适连结到道路的通道,3)该财 产是否有水、天然气或电及其他服务的供应, 4)是否该财产临近供应商及/或客户,及 5)对外国个人、外国 公司及有外资成分的墨西哥公司购买不动产的限制规定。 此外,所有在墨西哥的私有不动产都必需与相关公共财产登记机构进行登记。当投资人选好计划购买的财产时, 他们应该审阅买卖文件及该财产的产权文件,并确认该财产: 1) 没有任何担保或负担的设定;及 2)由主张为目 前所有人之人以他自己的名义登记。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


一外国投资人也应根据其所计划购买的财产的内容向全国农地登记系统进行查询。就此,一个很重要的事是合作 农场的土地是不可私有的。因此,任何合作农场的土地的买卖合约在合作农村土地未经合作农场农民会议决定从 合作农场土地系统移除前都是无效及没有执行效力的。由于上述原因,在郊区购买土地前,先向全国农地登记系 统查询相关土地不受特别的农地系统限制是非常重要的。 同样的,外国投资人必须检查财产的使用或土地分区规划以使他们得以进行他们的商业活动。每个城市的土地分 区规划及细规划可能都不相同。不过,他们可被区分为住宅、商业及工业三类。因此,很重要的是需确认所计划 进行的事业符合该财产的土地分区规划。 此外,在墨西哥购买财产时应检视以下文件: 





因此,应进行尽职调查以了解及确认上述所提的要求、信息及文件。 租赁 和购买一样,当投资人决定要租赁不动产时,重要的是需确认该财产:1)有合适的土地分区规划让他们得以设立 事业或进行希望从事的活动;2) 有经营事业所需的服务;3) 没有任何土地或下层土地的污染; 及 4)是由主 张其为现有所有人所实际拥有。 根据每一州的民法,为使租约有效,一般而言需以书面作成。虽然民法一般有该形式的要求,即使并非强制要 求,建议在公证人前签署或确认租约。 如租户应对财产进行某些工事或调整变更,建议在租约签署之前取得所有人对该等工事的书面授权,并在签约时 将此作为租约生效的条件或一正面承诺。另外一个重要的事是确认租期足以让租户回收对该财产的投资。对此, 也应注意到大部分的州的民法根据租赁财产及其使用的不同,都有对租赁合同的期间做出不同的租赁时间限制。

适用的劳动法律 劳动合同 合同的签署是劳动法最重要的问题之一,因为不论关系是依何种形式建立,雇佣关系的所产生的所有权利和义务 都来自合约的规定。 在墨西哥,有以下两种劳动合同:1) 个人雇佣合同;及 2)集体合同。个人合同通常是由一个员工及雇主所签 署,且牵涉的是个人的利益。相反地,集体合同通常由工会及雇主所签署,且签署到集体的利益。 尤其是,联邦劳动法(LFL)第 20 条将个人雇佣合同的概念与简单劳动关系做了区分,并规定劳动关系不论由什 么行为产生,是经由提供个人、下属的工作以换得薪资得给付,而个人雇佣合同,不论其形式或名称为何,是一

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


个人必须向另一个人提供个人及下属工作以换得薪资支付得合同。不过,个人雇佣合同及劳动关系产生了相同得 效果,因为两者得主要特征都涉及到提供个人及下属工作以换得薪资的支付。 个人劳动关系 个人雇佣合同及/或员工的雇佣文件,就联邦劳动法(LFL)第 25 条的要求而言,应至少提到下列信息: 



此外,在墨西哥招聘雇员时除其他以外还应考虑如下情况: 1) 根据提供服务的内容,是否有可能将收到及提供 服务的人之间的关系视为劳动雇佣关系或服务合同,应该认定会改变适用法律, 2) 支付收据必须包括某些法律 规定的项目, 3)根据联邦劳动法 (LFL)第 110 条的规定对法定薪资的折扣,4)保护及证明控制及/或劳动时 间的为员工登记的文件, 5)劳动关系的终止, 及 6)根据联邦劳动法第 47 条及第 51 条应合法理由可无需承 担任何责任的解除劳动关系。 必须指出的是联邦劳动法(LFL)规定了许多不同有利于雇员的规定,以确保墨西哥合众国宪法(CPEUM )所规 定的利益为他们的一般权利,例如: a) 假期 – 根据联邦劳动法(LFL)第 76 条,雇员服务时间超过一年的,应享有支薪的年假,而该期间 不得低于 6 个劳动日,且应每一年增加 2 个劳动日,直到总计日期达每年 12 个劳动日为止。 b) 假期奖金 - 根据联邦劳动法(LFL)第 80 条, 雇员有权在假期间换得不少于其薪资百分之二十五的 奖金。 c) 假日- 联邦劳动法(LFL)规定每工作 6 日,雇员必须有 1 天带薪假日。 另外,根据联邦劳动法(LFL)第 74 条的规定,法定假日为: 1 月 1 日、2 月的第 1 个周一、3 月的第 3 个周 一、5 月 1 日、9 月 16 日、11 月的第 3 个周一、每 6 年一次 12 月 1 日、12 月 25 日,及其他联邦、地方所规定 或选举法所规定的日期。 如雇员在该等加等假日工作时,他们将有权收到提供服务当天双倍的薪资。 d) 年度圣诞奖金 - 联邦劳动法(LFL)第 87 条规定每一雇员应收到包含 15 天薪资的年度圣诞奖金,而 该奖金并应于 12 月 20 日前支付。 e) 周日奖金 – 在周日提供服务的雇员应有权收到不少于平常日工作薪资百分之二十五的额外奖金。 工会及集体协商合同 工会是员工或雇员为学习、改进及保护他们相关利益所组成的组织。 相反地,集体协商合同是由一个或多个员工工会与一个或多个雇主(或一个或多个雇主工会)为建立一个或多个 公司或机构履行工作的条件所签署的合同。 社会安全

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


任何雇主在聘用雇员后将需负社会安全责任,且建议向墨西哥社会安全机构及全国劳工住房基金进行登记。 此外,应注意的是任何雇主应在公司设立几个委员会来建立及审查:1)有关安全及卫生的年度劳动计划, 2) 训练计划及课程, 3) 总体年资表, 及 4)雇员年度利润分享。

墨西哥税制 如上所述,墨西哥是个联邦体系,且和所有联邦体系一样,有些权力是保留给联邦政府,而有些权力是保留给州 及市级政府、或共同拥有该等权力。这个联邦制定也反映在墨西哥征税的能力之上。因为根据墨西哥合众国宪法 (CPEUM),某些税只能由联邦政府课征,而某些税只能由州政府课征、或某些税只能由市级政府课征、或某些 税联邦政府或州政府都可课征。 因为以上的情形,墨西哥税务事项可由三个角度分析: a) 联邦税, b) 地方税,及 c)国际角度。 联邦税一般为直接税,尤其是所得税。而该制度主要的缺失是由相对少数的纳税人必须负担大部分的税负。 为了避免双重课税可能对纳税人造成过度负担,联邦政府与每一州签署的财政协调协定,依据该协定,联邦政府 与州政府分享部分税收,但州政府不会课征某些项目的税。因此,地方税成为些微的税,而最主要的是向不动产 所有人课征的不动产税、针对向雇员所给付的薪资课征的薪资税及不动产交易税。 此外,不论由谁课税,墨西哥合众国宪法(CPEUM)中所包含的税务保证必须被尊重,因此,只有法律规定的并 尊重纳税人经济能力且不为造成特权待遇的税才是合法的税负。同时,所有所收到的税都应作为政府支出之用。 墨西哥对国际税务事项有重大的参与,其签署了许多为避免双重课税、信息交换及避免关税的条约。

墨西哥的机会 作了以上说明且将墨西哥定位为有潜力的经济体后,墨西哥已经是外国投资的实际机会了,也是其他投资人设点 经营事业的选择地。 在这几年及经由对相关法律框架的多项改革及修订,许多工业及制造业与墨西哥经济同时成长。因此,联邦政府 6 说了并做了许多基础建设项目。 关于此,联邦政府部门提出了在他们执政期间所有计划到墨西哥经商的投资人 都可考虑参与的特定项目。例如,山塔鲁西亚国际机场的执行、在墨西哥东南地区设立跨州的中速度火车(Maya 火车)、营运新的炼油厂及强化几个联邦电力委员会的电厂。 此外,墨西哥基础建设及多项产业的开发有很好及成功的历史,包括与美国的多元生产及外销的的强化及加深。 因此,墨西哥已经快速的增加各种联邦及地方政府所公开招标的的项目及私人项目中外国投资的参与。墨西哥理 解建立及加强一个对投资人而言强大但广泛及有吸引力的法律及法规环境的重要性。


墨西哥与超过 46 个国家签署了 12 个自由贸易协定、与 33 个国家签署了 32 个双边投资条约、并与拉丁美洲国家签署了 9 个优惠贸易协定。 中华人民共和国政府与墨西哥合众国政府关于促进及相互保护投资的协定。 3 墨西哥与中国签署了 20 多个较不相关的关于采矿、保护龙舌兰酒及科技合作等协议(不是协定)。 4 中国是这个公约的签署国。 5 根据了解如果一国非该公约的签署国,该授权书需先经该授权人住所地的墨西哥领事馆认证。 6 预计 2019 年 - 2024 年的国家发展计划将于 2019 年 4 月发布。 2

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


One Year After U.S. Tax Reform – What Chinese Corporations Need to Know By Erez I. Tucner and Joshua Linton


The U.S. tax world was completely revamped with the passage of a comprehensive tax reform bill – Tax Cuts & Jobs Act – in 2017. In the international tax arena, the stated goal was to "level the playing field" and incentivize more investments in, and operations within, the United States.


To achieve this goal, the tax reform significantly reduced the U.S. corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and offers immediate write-offs for certain investments in U.S. trade or business assets.


In addition, offshore income of U.S. corporations, for the most part, is now taxed at an even lower effective U.S. federal corporate income tax rate of 10.5 percent or 13.125 percent before taking into account foreign tax credits.


On the other hand, the law takes a "carrot and stick" approach. The "carrots" described above are accompanied by certain "sticks" that should be taken into consideration when planning U.S. investments or activity. Those "sticks" include a new broad limitation on interest deduction, limitation on certain other deductions and use of net operating losses, substantially ending deferral of offshore profits and various measures to combat the erosion of the taxable base of U.S. corporations.

This article summarizes the principal U.S. international tax reform provisions with a focus on provisions impacting Chinese corporations considering investing or operating in the United States, including traps for the unwary.

THE "CARROTS" UNDER THE U.S. TAX REFORM U.S. Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Reduced to 21 Percent The key change under the U.S. tax reform is the reduction of the U.S. federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Key Takeaways

Starting in 2018, U.S. corporations are subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax of only 21 percent on their worldwide net taxable income. o The 21 percent U.S. federal corporate income tax also applies to the U.S. business income of Chinese corporations that conduct a U.S. business through a U.S. permanent establishment.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Certain types of offshore (non-U.S.) income of U.S. corporations or their foreign subsidiaries is subject to an even lower effective tax rate of 10.5 percent or 13.125 percent. See below: 13.125 Percent Effective for Goods or Services Sold by U.S. Corporations to Unrelated Foreign Persons (FDII) and 10.5 Percent Effective Tax Rate for Active Offshore Income of Non-U.S. Subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations (GILTI).

Traps for the Unwary

U.S. state and local income taxes apply in most U.S. states and local jurisdictions in addition to the U.S. federal corporate income taxes with U.S. state corporate tax rates ranging from zero percent to 12 percent.

The U.S. withholding tax on dividend distributions from U.S. corporations to non-U.S. shareholders was not changed by the U.S. tax reform and remains at 30 percent, subject to a lower rate under an applicable income tax treaty, e.g., 10 percent U.S. dividend withholding tax under the China-U.S. income tax treaty (if the Chinese shareholder owns an interest of at least 10 percent of the U.S. corporation and qualifies for benefits under the treaty). o Therefore, starting in 2018, Chinese corporations investing or operating in the United States through a U.S. subsidiary will have an effective U.S. federal income tax rate of 28.9 percent (21 percent + [79 percent x 10 percent]1) on profits that are distributed to the Chinese parent company, as opposed to an effective U.S. federal income tax rate of 41.5 percent before the U.S. tax reform. o A similar effective tax rate applies to the U.S. business income of Chinese corporations that conduct a U.S. business through a U.S. permanent establishment with the U.S. dividend withholding tax replaced by a U.S. "branch profits" tax.

Full Expensing of Purchased Tangible Assets The tax reform bill incentivizes investment in certain tangible assets used in a U.S. business by allowing a deduction for 100 percent of the cost of the asset in the year the asset is acquired and placed in service. Key Takeaways

The full expensing deduction is allowed for most equipment and other tangible assets with a maximum recovery period of 20 years (as determined under the U.S. tax rules), such as most types of equipment and machinery.

It is also allowed for purchases of software as well as qualified film, television and live theatrical productions.

Unlike prior law, the purchased asset can be used prior to its acquisition (i.e., it does not have to be a new asset) as long as the prior use was not by the taxpayer or a related party.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Chinese purchasers of U.S. businesses (including through a U.S. subsidiary) should now consider more than before to structure the acquisition of the U.S. business as an asset purchase rather than as a stock purchase to get the benefit of the full expensing of the tangible business assets being acquired.

Traps for the Unwary

The asset has to be purchased from a nonrelated party in a taxable transaction.

The asset has to be acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. o After 2022, the allowable bonus depreciation begins to decline. In 2023, it will fall to 80 percent, and decreases by 20 percent each year thereafter, down to 20 percent in 2026.

The benefit is not allowed with respect to property primarily used in the trade or business of the furnishing or sale of electrical energy, water or sewage disposal services, gas or steam through a local distribution system, or transportation of gas or steam by pipeline.

Because of a drafting error, this benefit is not currently available for "qualified leasehold improvements" although this is expected to be fixed in an amendment to the tax code.

The benefit of a cost segregation study is now more important than ever.

This is a U.S. federal income tax benefit. States and local jurisdiction may or may not follow this for state and local income tax purposes. It is recommended that you make sure to check the state and local jurisdiction income tax rules in each relevant U.S. state and local jurisdiction.

13.125 Percent Effective Tax Rate for Goods or Services Sold by U.S. Corporations to Unrelated Foreign Persons (FDII) Chinese corporations operating through a U.S. subsidiary corporation can further reduce their effective U.S. federal income tax rate by taking advantage of preferential tax regime for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII). Key Takeaways

Starting in 2018, the FDII of a U.S. corporation is subject to an effective U.S. federal corporate income tax rate of 13.125 percent (16.406 percent for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025), because of a new 50 percent tax deduction (37.5 percent tax deduction for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025) against the U.S. corporation's FDII.

Despite its name, FDII is not specifically traced to intangible assets of the U.S. corporation. FDII is defined as the U.S. corporation's income from 1) the sales of goods to unrelated non-U.S. customers for foreign use, or 2) services provided to unrelated

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


customers located outside the United States or with respect to property located outside the U.S. Traps for the Unwary

The calculation of FDII is complicated. o For example, in determining the U.S. corporation's FDII, such income is reduced by an amount representing a 10 percent fixed return on a corporation's depreciable tangible business assets.

The benefit does not apply to sales of goods or services through an offshore "branch" or through a foreign subsidiary.

This is a U.S. federal income tax benefit. States and local jurisdiction may or may not follow this for state and local income tax purposes. It is recommended that you make sure to check the state and local jurisdiction income tax rules in each relevant U.S. state and local jurisdiction.

There has been adverse foreign reaction to FDII and it currently is being challenged as current to base erosion and profit shifting or BEPS (violation of minimum standard for preferential regimes) and as an illegal export subsidy under World Trade Organization (WTO) rule.

Illustrative Example

Assume a U.S. corporation's only depreciable business asset is equipment with a tax adjusted basis of $1,000. The U.S. corporation has $800 of gross income, $400 of which is from direct sales of products to unrelated foreign customers in China (not through a local "branch"). o The U.S. corporation's deemed income from intangibles is $700 (i.e., $800 – [$1,000 x 10 percent]). o The portion of this deemed intangible income that is eligible to the 50 percent FDII deduction is $350 (i.e., $700 x [$400 divided by $800]). o The $350 is subject to the 21 percent U.S. corporate income tax rate after applying a new 50 percent FDII deduction, resulting in an effective U.S. federal income tax rate of 13.125 percent (16.406 percent for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025). 10.5 Percent Effective Tax Rate for Active Offshore Income of Non-U.S. Subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations (GILTI) U.S. corporations operating in China (or any other non-U.S. jurisdiction) through a Chinese (or other non-U.S.) subsidiary corporation can reduce their effective U.S. federal income tax rate by taking advantage of preferential tax regime for global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI).

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Key Takeaways

Starting in 2018, the GILTI of a U.S. corporation is subject to an effective U.S. federal corporate income tax rate of 10.5 percent (13.125 percent for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025), because of a new 50 percent tax deduction (37.5 percent tax deduction for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025) against the U.S. corporation's GILTI, i.e., offshore active income derived though a controlled non-U.S. subsidiary. o A foreign tax credit is allowed for up to 80 percent of the foreign income taxes paid or accrued by the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary on the GILTI income. o As a result, the U.S. corporation is generally not taxed on its GILTI income if the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary is subject to foreign income tax of at least 13.125 percent on its offshore active income (or foreign income tax of at least 16.406 percent on its offshore active income for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025).

Despite its name, GILTI is not specifically traced to intangible assets of the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary. GILTI is defined as the U.S. corporation's pro rata share of the net taxable income (calculated under U.S. tax rules) of its controlled non-U.S. subsidiary from an active trade or business (with certain exclusions).

The offshore active income of the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary of the U.S. parent corporation that was included as taxable income of the U.S. parent corporation under the GILTI regime is generally not taxed again in the United States when distributed by the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary to the U.S. parent corporation.

Traps for the Unwary

The calculation of GILTI is complicated. o For example, in determining the U.S. corporation's GILTI, such income is reduced by an amount representing a 10 percent fixed return on the controlled foreign subsidiary's depreciable tangible assets used in its trade or business.

This is a big change from the law prior to the U.S. tax reform because a U.S. corporation's pro rata share of the active offshore income of a controlled non-U.S. subsidiary (i.e., the GILTI income) is now immediately subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax, whether or not distributions are made from the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary. (See below: Effective Ending of U.S. Tax Deferral of Offshore Income of Controlled Non-U.S. Subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations).

This is a U.S. federal income tax regime. States and local jurisdiction may or may not follow this for state and local income tax purposes. It is recommended that you make sure to check the state and local jurisdiction income tax rules in each relevant U.S. state and local jurisdiction.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved



U.S. Tax Rate  

U.S. corporation with foreign-derived intangible income (FDII)

 

U.S. corporation with foreign branch

Subpart F Income (generally, passive income of controlled foreign corporation) – 21 percent GILTI (generally, active income of controlled foreign corporation):  50 percent deduction x 21 percent corporate tax rate; i.e., 10.5 percent (before foreign tax credits for foreign income taxes)  Zero percent on 10 percent fixed return on the controlled foreign subsidiary's depreciable tangible assets used in its trade or business  No residual U.S. tax if foreign rate is 13.125 percent 37.5 percent deduction x 21 percent corporate tax rate; i.e., 13.125 percent effective tax rate on FDII 21 percent on 10 percent fixed return on the U.S. corporation's depreciable tangible assets used in its trade or business 21 percent (before foreign tax credits for foreign income taxes)

THE "STICKS" OF THE U.S. TAX REFORM Interest Deduction Limitation Prior to the U.S. tax reform, the deduction of interest expense of U.S. corporations was generally not limited except for certain interest expense paid to foreign related parties. This has been changed by the U.S. tax reform. Beginning in 2018, deductions of any net interest expense of a U.S. corporation, whether paid to a related party or not and whether paid to a U.S. or a non-U.S. person, are limited to 30 percent of the U.S. corporation's EBITDA for the year (30 percent of EBIT beginning in 2022). Key Takeaways

The amount of the disallowed interest deduction in any year is carried forward to future years indefinitely.

The limitation does not apply to certain small businesses (other than a tax shelter) whose average annual gross receipts for the three preceding years do not exceed $25 million.

This limitation on interest deductions makes borrowing at the U.S. subsidiary level less beneficial from a U.S. tax perspective.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Traps for the Unwary

Existing financing structures should be examined to take into account this new interest deduction limitation.

This limitation on interest deductions applies irrespective of whether the interest recipient (lender) is a U.S. or non-U.S. person, or related or unrelated to the borrower.

The limitation applies to a broad types of payments that are viewed as "interest" payments for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The limitation on interest deductions can be avoided with respect to certain investments in U.S. real property by making an "Electing Real Property Trade or Business" election, but in exchange, the electing taxpayer is required to depreciate its buildings and improvements over a longer time frame and not claim the new 100 percent bonus depreciation on its qualified improvement property.

Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) Prior to the tax reform, a U.S. subsidiary could reduce its U.S. tax liability by making deductible payments to its foreign parent or to a foreign subsidiary. Concerned about a possible erosion of the U.S. tax base, the U.S. Congress sought to limit abuse by enacting the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT). Key Takeaways

BEAT operates as a minimum U.S. corporate income tax on U.S. corporations making deductible payments to foreign affiliates.

It only applies to "large" U.S. corporations that 1) have or are part of affiliated groups that have annual gross receipts of at least $500 million for the past three years, and 2) the U.S. corporation makes deductible "base erosion payments" to foreign related parties of at least 3 percent of their total deductible expenses for the year (2 percent for financial corporations).

"Base erosion payments" include payments by a U.S. corporation to a related non-U.S. person of interest, rents, royalties, service fees and depreciation on property acquired from a related party.

The minimum tax that applies is a 10 percent tax rate (5 percent for 2018; 12.5 percent starting in 2020) applied to the U.S. corporation's net taxable income without taking into account the deductible "base erosion payments" to foreign related parties. o The rate is 1 percent higher for groups that include banks or securities dealers. o It is a minimum tax because taxpayers are required to pay the higher of BEAT or their regular tax liability.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


There are two important exclusions from the definition of "base erosion payments" – cost of goods sold and the "cost" portion of service fees that are based on "cost" or "cost plus."

To mitigate or avoid the BEAT implications, it is therefore important to analyze the intercompany payments made in supply chains of large Chinese affiliated groups that include U.S. corporations and try to characterize as many intercompany offshore payments by the U.S. corporations as possible as "cost" service fees or costs of goods sold.

Illustrative Example

Suppose a Chinese car manufacturer has a U.S. manufacturing subsidiary. The U.S. subsidiary buys car parts from its Chinese parent, manufactures the finished car and sells it in the U.S. The U.S. subsidiary pays its Chinese parent a sales-based royalty for use of its brand name on the cars. o If the U.S. subsidiary deducts the royalty payment it is a base erosion payment and could potentially expose the U.S. subsidiary to BEAT. o If instead the U.S. subsidiary capitalizes the royalty to its inventory and includes it in cost of goods sold, the royalty is not a base erosion payment. No Deduction for Hybrid Payments Made to a Related Party In a similar vein, the tax reform seeks to limit taxpayers from taking advantage of different tax treatment across jurisdictions of interest or royalty payments. Key Takeaways

The tax reform denies deductions for interest or royalty payments made by a U.S. corporation to a foreign-related party if there is no corresponding inclusion in income by the related party or if the related party is allowed a deduction with respect to the payment under the tax law of its country. o

For example, if a U.S. subsidiary made what would otherwise be a deductible interest payment to its Chinese parent and Chinese tax law treated the payment as a non-taxable capital contribution, the U.S. subsidiary would not be able to deduct the interest payment for U.S. federal corporate income tax purposes.


Proposed regulation guidance was issued on this consistent with Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) BEPS anti-hybrid/branch project.

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Net Operating Loss Limitation Prior to the tax reform, U.S. corporations could generally carry back their net operating losses (NOL) to the prior two years and then carry forward any unused NOLs to future years for up to 20 years. The tax reform disallows a carryback of NOLs to prior years and imposes a new 80 percent limitation on the ability of U.S. corporations to use carried forward NOLs. The carry forward of NOLs, however, is no longer limited to 20 years. Key Takeaways

Starting in 2018, NOLs can no longer be carried back but may be carried forward indefinitely but are only allowed to offset up to 80 percent of taxable income for the year.

Chinese purchasers of U.S. corporations should be aware that the U.S. corporation's NOLs may now be less valuable than prior to the U.S. tax reform.

Sale of an Interest in a "Pass-Through" Entity Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business Prior to tax reform, non-U.S. persons were not subject to U.S. federal income tax on gain from the sale of an interest in a "pass-through" entity (such as a partnership or a LLC treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) that was engaged in a U.S. trade or business (other than with respect to U.S. real property held by such entities). The U.S. tax reform changes this rule thereby overruling a recent U.S. Tax Court decision on the issue. Key Takeaways

The tax reform bill provides that non-U.S. persons are subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax (and "branch profits" tax in the case of a non-U.S. corporation) on the gain from a sale or other disposition on or after Nov. 27, 2017 of an interest in a "passthrough" entity that is attributable to the "pass-through" entity's U.S. trade or business.

The purchaser is generally required to withhold and remit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 10 percent of the purchase price as an advance tax payment of the nonU.S. seller.

Traps for the Unwary

This can also apply in the case of reorganizations and other non-cash transactions.

Effective Ending of U.S. Tax Deferral of Offshore Income of Controlled Non-U.S. Subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations Prior to the U.S. tax reform, U.S. corporations were generally not subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on the active income of a controlled non-U.S. subsidiary until the income was distributed to the parent U.S. corporation (i.e., the U.S. tax on the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary's offshore active income was deferred until the profits were distributed to the U.S. parent corporation). Upon repatriation to the U.S. parent corporation, the dividend income was subject to a 35 percent U.S. federal corporate income tax rate (plus state and local corporate income taxes, if any).

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


The U.S. tax reform effectively ended this deferral regime. As a result of the U.S. tax reform, beginning in 2018, a U.S. corporation's pro rata share of the active offshore income of a controlled non-U.S. subsidiary is immediately subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax, whether or not distributions are made from the controlled non-U.S. subsidiary, although such income is taxed to the U.S. parent corporation's at a preferential effective tax rate of 10.5 percent before taking into account possible foreign tax credit offsets (See above: 10.5 Percent Effective Tax Rate for Active Offshore Income of Non-U.S. Subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations).


i.e., 21 percent U.S. federal corporate income tax on the U.S. corporation's net taxable income plus 10 percent U.S. dividend withholding tax on dividend distributions of the 79 percent after-tax profits to the Chinese parent corporation (assuming that the Chinese parent corporation qualifies for the reduced dividend withholding tax pursuant to the China-U.S. income tax treaty).

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


美国税改一年后 – 中国企业需知道的事 原文作者 Erez I. Tucner 及 Joshua Linton 重点摘要: »

美国的税制透过一个涵盖层面广泛的税赋改革法案 - 减税及工作法案- 的通过在 2017 年做了一次完全 的翻修。在国际税赋领域,其宣告的目标是将“游戏规则公平化”且鼓励更多对美国及在美国的投资。


为达成这个目标,税改将美国企业所得税的税率大大地从 35%降到 21%,且让某些对美国贸易或商业进行 投资所取得的资产得立即进行抵销。


此外,大部分的美国公司海外所得,现依更低的美国联邦企业所得税 10.5%的有效税率或还没考虑到外国 税款扣抵额的 13.125%课征。


另一方面,这个法案带着“软硬兼施”的做法。计划到美国进行投资或商业活动时应考虑到该带有某些 “硬的措施”的 “软的优惠”。那些“硬的措施”包括对利息扣除的新的广泛限制、对其他扣除及使用 净营业损失的限制、基本上结束了海外利润的递延及做出许多措施以打击对美国公司课税基础的侵害。

本文章对主要的美国国际税务改革条款做了摘要,并着重于对考虑到美国投资及经营的中国公司会产生影响的条 款, 包括对许多不注意可能踩到的陷阱的摘要。

美国税改的“软的优惠” 美国联邦企业所得税率降到 21% 美国税改的主要改变是将美国联邦企业所得税的税率从 35%降低到 21%。 关键重点  自 2018 年起,美国公司就其全球净应税所得将只需负 21%的美国联邦企业所得税。 o

这 21%的税率对透过一美国的常设机构在美国经营商业活动的中国公司的美国营业收入亦适用。

 美国公司或其国外子公司的某些种类的海外(非美国)收入适用更低的 10.5%有效税率或 13.125%的税 率。请见以下:美国公司销售商品及服务给非相关外国人士的 13.125%有效税率(FDII)和美国公司非 美国子公司的主动性海外收入的 10.5%有效税率 (GILTI)。 不注意可能踩到的陷阱  除了美国联邦企业所得税外,还有在大部分的州和地方管辖地区课征税率从 0%到 12%不等的美国州及地 方所得税。  美国税改没有改变美国公司对非美国股东分配股利时应扣缴美国税的规定,且除适用的所得税协定有规 定更低的税率外,扣缴税率为 30%。例如依中美的所得税协定,对股利分配的美国扣缴税率为 10%(如中 国股东拥有美国公司至少 10%的股份且符合协定有关该优惠的规定时)。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved



因此,从 2018 年起,中国公司透过一美国子公司在美国投资或经营商业活动所生向中国母公司分 1 派的利润所适用的有效税率将为 28.9% (即 21% +【79% x 10%】 ),而不是美国税改前 41.5% 的有效美国联邦所得税率。


类似的有效税率对中国公司透过一美国常设机构进行美国商业活动所产生的美国营业收入适用, 而美国股利的扣缴税为美国“分支机构利润”所取代。

购买有形资产可全部列为费用支出 税改法案以允许资产购买及投入使用的当年对该资产取得成本 100%进行抵扣,以鼓励对使用在美国商业活动的 某些有形资产的投资。 关键重点  这可全数进行费用抵扣适用包括大部分最长摊销期间为 20 年的设备及其他有形资产(依美国税务规 则决定), 例如绝大多数种类的设备及机器。  它也适用于对软件、某些合格的影片、电视及现场剧场产品的购买。  与先前规定不同的是,购买的资产可在收购前已被使用(即他们无需为新的资产),只要之前并非由 该纳税人或其相关方所使用。  购买美国事业(包括透过美国子公司进行购买)的中国买家和以前相比现更应多考虑将美国事业的收 购规划为一资产收购而非股份收购,以获得可将所购买的有形资产全部列为费用支出扣抵的好处。 不注意可能踩到的陷阱  这些资产必须是向非相关方在一应税交易中所购买。  这些资产应在 2017 年 9 月 27 日之后及 2023 年 1 月 1 日前被购买及投入使用。 o

2022 年以后,这些被允许的额外摊销将开始减少。在 2023 年,它将减为 80%,且于之后每年减少 20%,直到 2026 年为 20%。

 这些优惠不适用于主要用于透过地方经销系统或以管道运输天然气或蒸汽方式提供或销售电力能源、 水、污水处理服务、天然气或蒸汽的贸易或商业的财产。  因为法律起草的笔误,这个优惠目前不适用于“合格的租赁改良物”,虽然该笔误预计于对税法修改 时加以修正。  成本分离研究的利益变的比以前重要了。  这是一个美国联邦的税务优惠。州或地方在州及地方税上可能不会参照提供相关优惠。建议对相关的 每一美国州及地方的州及地方税规定进行查询。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


美国公司销售商品及服务给非相关外国人士的 13.125%有效税率 (FDII) 中国公司透过其美国子公司在美国经营事业可以利用国外衍生无形收入(FDII)的优惠税收制度而进一 步减低其有效美国联邦所得税率。 关键重点  自 2018 年起,因为对美国公司的国外衍生无形收入(FDII)的一项新的 50%的税务扣除,美国公司 的国外衍生无形收入(FDII)适用 13.125%的有效美国联邦企业所得税税率(因为该扣除比率自 2025 年 12 月 31 日起后率变为 37.5%,自 2025 年 12 月 31 日起的税务年度该有效税率变为 16.406%)。  尽管它的名称,国外衍生无形收入(FDII)并非特别由美国公司的无形资产所产生。 国外衍生无形 收入(FDII)被定义为因以下原因所产生的收入:1)向不相关的非美国客户销售产品供国外使用, 或 2)向位于美国境外的不相关客户或对位在美国境外的财产提供服务。 不注意可能踩到的陷阱  国外衍生无形收入(FDII)的计算是复杂的。 o

例如,在决定美国公司的国外衍生无形收入(FDII),该收入需减除一相等于该公司可折旧 的无形商业资产 10%的固定收益的金额。

 这个优惠不适用于透过一海外“分支机构”或透过外国子公司销售商品或服务的情形。  这是一个美国联邦所得税法的优惠。州或地方在州及地方税上可能不会参照提供相关优惠。建议对相 关的每一美国州及地方的州及地方税规定进行查询。  出现了外国对对国外衍生无形收入(FDII)的负面反应,且目前被指控为违反了世界贸易组织规则下 侵蚀税基及移转利润(或称 BEPS)(违反了优惠税务制度下的最低标准),而应被视为非法的外销 津贴。 示例 假设一美国公司唯一的可折旧商业资产为一调整后税基为 1000 美元的设备。美国公司有 800 美元的总收 入,其中 400 美元来自向在中国的不相关海外客户直接销售产品(非透过一当地“分支机构”)。 o

美国公司的被认定从无形资产产生的收入为 700 美元(即 800 美元 - 【1000 美元 x 10%】)。


这个被认定为无形收入中符合享受 50%国外衍生无形收入(FDII)扣减的部分为 350 美元(即 700 美 元 x【400 美元 / 800 美元】。


350 美元在适用这个新的 50%国外衍生无形收入(FDII)扣除之后适用 21%的美国企业所得税率,导 致一为 13.125%的美国联邦所得税有效税率(2025 年 12 月 31 日起的税务年度该税率变为 16.406%)。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


美国公司非美国子公司的主动性海外收入的 10.5%有效税率 (GILTI) 美国公司透过中国(或其他非美国)子公司在中国(或其他非美国法律管辖区域)营业的,可以利用全 球无形低税收入(GILTI)的优惠税务制度来减低他们的有效美国联邦所得税率。 关键重点  自 2018 年起,因为对美国公司的全球无形低税收入(GILTI)(即自透过其所控制的非美国子公司所 产生的海外主动性收入)的一项新的 50%的税务扣除, 美国公司的全球无形低税收入(GILTI)将适用 一为 10.5%的美国联邦企业所得税有效税率(因为该扣除比率自 2025 年 12 月 31 日起变为 37.5%,自 2025 年 12 月 31 日起之后的税务年度该有效税率变为 13.125%)。 o

允许所控制的非美国子公司就全球无形低税收入所付或所产生的外国所得税享有最高 80%的外 国税额扣除。


因此,如所控制的非美国子公司对其海外主动性收入适用至少 13.125%的外国所得税的税率 (或自 2025 年 12 月 31 日起对其海外主动性收入须适用至少 16.406%的外国所得税的税率) 的话,美国公司一般是不会就其全球无形低税收入(GILTI) 被课到税的。

 尽管它的名称,全球无形低税收入(GILTI)并非特别由所控制的非美国子公司的无形资产所产生。 全球无形低税收入(GILTI)被定义为美国公司依其所控制的非美国子公司自主动性贸易或商业(几 个例外除外)所产生的净应税所得(依美国税法计算)的按比例分摊金额。  美国母公司所控制的非美国子公司的海外主动性所得依全球无形低税收入(GILTI)的税务规定,应 包含于美国母公司的应税收入中,且当所控制的非美国子公司分配股利给美国母公司时一般不再重新 课税。 不注意可能踩到的陷阱  全球无形低税收入(GILTI)的计算是复杂的。 o

在计算美国公司的全球无形低税收入(GILTI)时,该收入需减除一相等于该可控制的外国子 公司使用于其贸易或商业的可折旧的无形资产 10%的固定收益的金额。

 这是一项对美国税改之前法律的重大改变,因为美国公司所分摊到其所的控制的非美国子公司得主动 性海外收入(即全球性低税收入)现需立即课征美国联邦企业所得税,无论控制的非美国子公司是否 有做分配(以下请见: 美国公司所控制的海外子公司海外收入的美国税的递延的有效终止)。  这是一个美国联邦的税务规定。州或地方在州及地方税上可能不会参照拥有相关规定。建议对相关的 每一美国州及地方的州及地方税规定进行查询。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


美国税改后美国公司进行海外活动时不同架构/税率的摘要 架构 由美国公司所拥有及所控制的外国公司

美国税率  

有外国衍生的无形收入(FDII) 的美国公司

 


F 小节收入 (一般而言,所控制外国公司的被 动性收入) – 21 % 全球无形低税收入(GILTI)(一般而言,所控 制公司的主动性收入):  50% 扣减 x 21% 公司税税率; 即 10.5% ( 对外国收入税适用外国税税额扣减之前)  对所控制的外国子公司使用于其贸易或商 业的可折旧的无形资产 10%固定收益的金额 适用税率为 0%  如果外国税率为 13.125%则没有残余美国税 37.5% 扣减 x 21% 公司税税率; 即对 FDII 的 有效税率为 13.125% 美国公司使用于其贸易或商业的可折旧的无形 资产 10%固定收益的金额适用税率为 21% 21% (对外国收入适用外国税税额扣减之前)

美国税改的“硬的措施” 对利息扣除的限制 在美国税改之前,美国公司对利息支出的扣除一般是不受限制的,除非某些利息的支出是向外国相关方 做出的。这被美国税改所改变。自 2018 年起,美国公司对任何净利息支出的扣除,无论是否是向关联方做出或 无论是向美国或非美国人士做出,以美国公司该年的 EBITDA 的 30%为限(而 2022 年起以 EBIT 的 30%为限)。 关键重点  每一年不被允许的利息扣除将无限期延至任何之后的年度。  这个限制对某些过去 3 年平均年总收入不超过 2500 万美元的小型事业(避税机构除外)不适用。  这个对扣减利息的限制从税务角度而言造成美国子公司这层面进行借款更不利。 不注意可能踩到的陷阱  应对现行的财务结构进行审视以考虑到这个新的利息扣减限制。  这个对利息扣减的限制无论利息获取方(贷方)是一美国或非美国人士,或与借方是否存在关联关系 都适用。  从美国联邦所得税的目的而言,这个限制广泛地适用于各种可被视为“利息”的支付。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


 这个对利息扣减的限制可在某些对美国不动产的投资中以做出“选择不动产贸易或商业”的方式避 免,但相对需付出的是,作该选择的纳税人必须在一个较长的期间中对其建筑物及改良物进行折旧, 且不能主张适用对它合格的改良建筑享有新的 100%额外折旧。 税基侵蚀及反滥用税(BEAT) 在税改之前,美国子公司可以向其外国母公司或子公司支付可扣减的付款来降低其美国税负。顾虑到对美国税基 的可能侵蚀,美国国会以制订税基侵蚀及反滥用税(BEAT)来寻求对此滥用的限制。 关键重点  税基侵蚀及反滥用税(BEAT)作为对向外国关联企业支付可扣除付款的美国公司的最低美国企业所得 税。  它只对如下“大的”美国公司适用:1)过去 3 年年总收入至少为 5 亿美元的相关集团或其部分,且 2)美国公司对外国关联方所做可扣减的“侵蚀税基付款”金额至少为当年他们可扣减费用总额 3% (对金融公司而言为 2%)。  “侵蚀税基付款”包括美国公司向关联的非美国人士所做的利息、租金、权利金、服务费付款及向关 联方购买的财产的折旧。  在不考虑向外国关联方所做可扣除的“侵蚀税基付款”的前提下,适用美国公司净应税所得的最低税 率为 10%的税率(2018 年为 5%; 2020 年开始为 12.5%)。 o

对包括银行及证券商等集团的税率调高 1%


它是最低税负,因为纳税人必须对他们正常的应税金额缴纳较高的税基侵蚀及反滥用税 (BEAT)或缴纳他们通常应缴的税额。

 “侵蚀税基付款”的定义有 2 个重要的例外 – 商品出售成本及基于“成本”或“成本加成”的服务 费的“成本”部分。  为减轻或避免税基侵蚀及反滥用税(BEAT)的影响,对包含美国公司的大的中国关联集团的供应链中 所做的公司间付款的分析及尽可能界定越多的美国公司所做作为服务费或商品买卖的“成本”的公司 间海外付款变成重要的事。 示例 假设一个中国汽车制造商在美国有一个从事制造的子公司。美国子公司向其中国母公司购买汽车零部件、制造了 最终成车并在美国境内销售。美国子公司向其中国母公司支付了按销售计算的车辆品牌使用权利金。 o

如果美国子公司扣减了权利金,它将为侵蚀税基付款且可能造成美国子公司面临税基侵蚀及反滥用税 (BEAT)。


如果美国子公司将权利金作成其存货的成本,且将其含在商品销售的成本之内,权利金就不是侵蚀税 基付款。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


对关联方所做的混合付款不得进行扣减 基于同一思路,税改试图限制纳税人就利息或权利金的付款一事从不同法律管辖区所提供的不同税务处理中捡便 宜。 关键重点  如果关联方没有相对的将该付款加于收入之内或关联方依其国家的税法被允许将其扣减的话,税改禁 止美国公司向外国关联方所做的利息或权利金付款的扣减。 o

例如,如果一美国子公司向中国母公司做了一个在其他情况下应可扣减的利息付款,且中国 法将该付款视为不需课税的出资,就美国企业所得税的目的,美国子公司将不能对该利息付 款进行扣减。



对净营业损失的限制 在税改之前,美国公司一般只能将他们的净营业损失(NOL)回溯到之前 2 年,且之后将尚未用到的净营 业损失(NOLs)在之后最长 20 年的年度中扣减。税改禁止了将净营业损失(NOL)回溯到之前年度扣减的做法, 且对美国公司就净营业损失(NOLs)在之后的年度扣减增加了一个新的 80%的限制。但这在之后扣减的做法已不 再有 20 年的限制。 关键重点  自 2018 年起,净营业损失(NOL)不可再回溯扣减,但可无限期在之后扣减,不过最高只允许对该年 度应税收入的 80%进行抵销。  购买美国公司的中国买家应知道美国公司的净营业损失(NOLs)现在比税改以前更没价值了。 对一个从事美国贸易或商业的“通过”性组织个体的权益的出售 在税改之前,非美国个人对出售一个从事美国贸易或商业的“通过” 性组织个体(例如合伙或为美国联 邦所得税目的被视为合伙的 LLC)(除因该等个体持有的美国不动产而取得所得外)的出售所得不需缴纳美国联 邦所得税。美国税改对此做了改变,因而推翻了最近美国税务法院对本问题的一个判决。 关键重点  税改法案规定非美国人士于 2017 年 11 月 27 日及其后出售或以其他方式处置一个“通过” 性组织个 体的权益时,需就可归属该 “通过” 性组织个体的美国贸易或商业所产生的所得缴纳美国联邦企业 所得税(如非美国公司的话,需缴“分公司利润”税)。  买方一般被要求扣缴并向国税局(IRS)支付购买价金 10%作为非美国卖方的预先支付税款。 不注意可能踩到的陷阱  这也可在重组及其他非现金交易的情形适用。

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


美国公司控制的非美国海外子公司海外收入的美国税的递延的有效终止 在美国税改之前,美国公司一般对其所控制的非美国子公司的主动性收入,在收入向美国母公司分配之前不需缴 纳美国联邦企业所得税(即对所控制的非美国子公司的海外主动性收入的税递延至利润向母公司分配时)。在利 润向母公司分配时,股利收入需缴纳 35%的美国联邦企业所得税(加上州及地方公司所得税,如适用的话)。 美国税改有效上已将这个递延制度终止了。 由于美国的税改,自 2018 年起,美国公司对其所控制的非美国子公司的按比例享有的主动性海外收入应立即缴 纳美国联邦企业所得税,无论所控制的非美国子公司是否有做分配,但该收入在考虑可能的外国税额扣减抵销前 依美国母公司优惠的 10.5%有效税率课税(参见以上: 美国公司非美国子公司的主动性海外收入的 10.5%有效 税率)。

例如对美国公司的净应税收入课征 21%的美国联邦企业所得税,并加上对其余 79%税后分配给中国母公司的利润 课征 10%的美国股利扣缴税(假设中国母公司依据中美所得税协定符合适用减低的股利分配扣缴税)。 1

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Mike Chiang is a corporate attorney with more than two decades of legal experience representing many multinational corporations in various industries. He provides comprehensive representation regarding joint ventures, venture capital and private equity investments; mergers and acquisitions; inbound and outbound investments; technology transfers; sales and distribution transactions; and cross-border litigation and arbitration matters. John P. Kern is a partner in Holland & Knight's San Francisco office, where his practice focuses on representing healthcare, financial services and technology companies – from start-ups to Fortune 100 companies – in commercial litigation matters in federal and state court. He also has significant experience representing companies in a broad range of government investigations. David I. Holtzman is an attorney in Holland & Knight's San Francisco office and a member of the firm's Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Group. He focuses his practice on general commercial litigation and has extensive experience representing both companies and individuals in a broad array of civil disputes in state and federal courts nationwide, as well as arbitrations and mediations. Alejandro Landa Thierry is a partner in Holland & Knight's Mexico City office and leads the office's banking and finance practice. His practice focuses in energy finance, bank and corporate finance, capital markets, structured finance, mergers and acquisitions, financial restructuring, project finance, energy and real estate matters. Erez I. Tucner is a partner in Holland & Knight's New York office. He advises on corporate, international and personal tax matters. He works with U.S. and international clients on structuring and negotiating the tax aspects of complex domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Joshua Linton is a corporate attorney in Holland & Knight's New York office. He practices in the areas of business and tax law.

Copyright Š 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.1.745.5800

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409

Rebecca Leon | Miami +1.305.789.7703

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746

Moqi Liu | San Francisco +1.415.743.6963

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480

Sophie Jin | Washington, D.C. +1.202.469.5179

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.1.745.5940

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006

Copyright © 2019 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved


Profile for Holland & Knight

Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: March - April 2019  

Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: March - April 2019  

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded