Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: July-August 2020 by Holland & Knight

期刊

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN DISTRESSED DEBT: UNIQUE TAX OPPORTUNITIES, BUT BEWARE OF PITFALLS ..................................................................................................................................................4 外国对不良债务的投资：独特的税务机会，但要提防陷阱 ..........................................................................9 SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED OFAC REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR BUSINESSES, AND OFAC COMPLIANCE GUIDANCE UPDATE ......................................................................................................13 显著扩大的 OFAC 企业报告要求及 OFAC 合规指导意见的最新发展 ........................................................19 EMPLOYEE AND BENEFITS CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DOING BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................................24 在美国经营事业应注意的员工和福利事项清单 .........................................................................................27 IMMIGRATION UNDER COVID-19: CONSIDERATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS WITH H-1B VISA WORKERS ..............................................................................................................................................30 COVID-19 下的移民：雇佣 H-1B 签证员工的雇主应注意事项 ..................................................................34 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................37 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................37 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................37 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................37

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 1,400 professionals in 27 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 27 个办公室的 1400 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。

Foreign Investment in Distressed Debt: Unique Tax Opportunities, But Beware of Pitfalls By Seth J. Entin

HIGHLIGHTS  The economic troubles that many businesses are facing because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic have given rise to significant interest by investors in acquiring, or investing in funds that acquire, distressed debt instruments.  Foreign investors may earn interest income on debt and may also earn income from the sale or retirement of debt issued by U.S. companies free of U.S. tax, if certain conditions are met.  However, despite these favorable rules, there are certain pitfalls that may cause foreign investors to nonetheless be subject to U.S. tax on these investments.  This Holland & Knight alert discusses some key potential U.S. federal income tax opportunities and challenges for foreign investors in U.S. distressed debt.

____________________ The economic troubles that many businesses are facing because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic have given rise to significant interest by investors in acquiring, or investing in funds that acquire, distressed debt instruments.1 This Holland & Knight alert discusses some key potential U.S. federal income tax2 opportunities and challenges for foreign investors in U.S. distressed debt.

BACKGROUND Foreign investors may earn interest income on debt issued by U.S. companies free of U.S. tax, if certain conditions are met. Foreign investors may also earn income from the sale or retirement of debt issued by U.S. companies free of U.S. tax, if certain conditions are met. These rules make distressed debt of U.S. companies an attractive investment for foreign investors. However, despite these favorable rules, there are certain pitfalls that may cause foreign investors to nonetheless be subject to U.S. tax on these investments. This alert first summarizes the U.S. tax regimes that apply to foreign investors. It then discusses certain of the specific beneficial rules that allow foreign investors to earn income from debt instruments free of U.S. tax. Then, it discusses some of the issues that may cause foreign investors to be subject to U.S. tax on their income from distressed debt, and some (but not all) of the approaches that may be taken to address these concerns.

TAXATION OF FOREIGN PERSONS In general, a foreign person is subject to U.S. taxation as follows: Effectively Connected Income A foreign person that is engaged in a "trade or business" in the United States is subject to U.S. federal income tax on income that is "effectively connected" with that trade or business (commonly referred to as "effectively connected income"). Effectively connected income is taxed on a "net" basis (i.e., deductions allocable to such Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

income are allowed), at the graduated rates applicable to U.S. persons. In addition, in the case of a foreign corporation, a 30 percent branch profits tax is imposed (unless reduced by treaty) on earnings and profits attributable to the corporation's effectively connected earnings and profits that are not reinvested in a U.S. trade or business. Under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), income earned by a foreign person from the sale of a United States real property interest (USRPI) is taxed as effectively connected income. 30 Percent Withholding Tax A foreign person is also subject to U.S. federal income tax at a flat 30 percent rate (unless reduced by treaty) on certain categories of U.S. source income that are not effectively connected income, such as U.S. source interest and dividends. This tax is imposed on a "gross" basis (i.e., deductions are not allowed). In general, this tax is collected by means of withholding, and is often referred to as the 30 percent withholding tax. There is, however, an important exception to this 30 percent withholding tax, known as the "portfolio interest exemption," discussed below. The portfolio interest exemption allows a foreign person to earn U.S. source interest income free of the 30 percent withholding tax. Furthermore, a foreign person is not subject to tax on gain from the sale of property, unless the gain is effectively connected income (including, under FIRPTA, gain from the sale of a USRPI). Therefore, a foreign person may potentially sell a debt instrument free of U.S. tax.

PORTFOLIO INTEREST EXEMPTION The 30 percent withholding tax is not imposed on U.S. source "portfolio interest" received by foreign persons. This is referred to as the "portfolio interest exemption." Portfolio interest is interest that meets certain specific requirements. Generally, interest on an obligation constitutes portfolio interest if the obligation is in "registered form" and the withholding agent receives an IRS Form W-8 stating that the beneficial owner of the obligation is not a U.S. person. "Registered form" generally means that the lender's interest in the debt obligation is transferable only through a book entry system maintained by the issuer (or its agent) or by surrender of the old instrument and issuance of a new instrument. If foreign investors acquire a pool of loans that are not in registered form, the tax law allows for portfolio interest treatment if the loans are held by a trust or other type of entity that issues a "pass-through certificate" that is in registered form. There are, however, certain limitations on the availability of the portfolio interest exemption. For example, the portfolio interest exemption does not apply to:    

interest income that is effectively connected income interest received by a "10 percent shareholder" of the borrower3 "contingent" interest4 interest received by a bank on an extension of credit made pursuant to a loan agreement entered into in the ordinary course of its trade or business

MARKET DISCOUNT Under general U.S. tax principles, the purchase of debt in the secondary market at a discount gives rise to what is known as "market discount." This market discount accrues over the remaining term of the debt Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

pursuant to a formula, and then is required to be recognized by the holder of the debt as ordinary income upon redemption or disposition of the debt. For example, say that investors purchase a note with a $100 million face amount in the secondary market for $70 million. The investors hold the note to maturity and collect the full $100 million. Under general U.S. tax principles, the $30 million of market discount will be taxed to them as ordinary income. Moreover, partial principal payments that are made prior to maturity can often accelerate the recognition of this ordinary income for the investors. Fortunately, however, foreign persons are not subject to U.S. tax on market discount if the market discount is not effectively connected income. This allows a significant opportunity for foreign investors to realize gain from distressed debt free of U.S. tax.

EFFECTIVELY CONNECTED INCOME AND OTHER ISSUES As can be seen from the discussion above, in order to obtain favorable tax treatment, a foreign investor's income and gain from distressed debt must not be treated as effectively connected income. Several challenges in this regard (as well as several others) are discussed below. Origination and Modification of Loans In general, if foreign investors buy and sell debt on the secondary market, this, in and of itself, should not cause the foreign investors' income and gain from the distressed debt to be treated as effectively connected income. The tax law provides a "safe harbor" under which foreign persons are not treated as engaged in a trade or business in the United States as a result of trading in "stocks and securities" (which includes debt instruments) for their own account. However, if foreign persons originate loans in the United States, the safe harbor described above will not apply. Therefore, in many cases, foreign persons will be deemed engaged in a trade or business in the United States by virtue of their U.S. loan origination activities, and their income from the loans therefore will be taxed as effectively connected income. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), this is the case even if the loans are originated by an independent agent of the foreign person.5 What if foreign persons purchase debt instruments and then renegotiate the debt instruments with the borrowers? Under U.S. tax principles, a "significant modification" of a debt instrument is treated as the exchange of one debt instrument (the unmodified debt instrument) for a new debt instrument (the modified debt instrument) and the extinguishment of the old debt instrument. There is a meaningful concern that this may be treated as the origination of a loan in the United States, which may cause the foreign persons to be deemed engaged in a trade or business in the United States and the income from the loans to be taxed as effectively connected income. The issue of whether the modification of debt in the United States gives rise to a trade or business in the United States is not settled, and the analysis is highly fact specific. Foreign investors who anticipate engaging in such activity should consult with U.S. tax counsel beforehand. Furthermore, it should be noted that even if a modification of the debt does not give rise to a trade or business in the United States, if the modified debt has "contingent" interest (e.g., interest contingent on the cash flow of the debtor), this may not qualify for the portfolio interest exemption under the rules set forth above. Furthermore, if the foreign investors are given options or warrants in the debtor company, this may in certain cases cause the portfolio interest exemption to be inapplicable under the 10 percent shareholder limitation noted above. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Foreclosures If the distressed debt instrument is backed by a mortgage on U.S. real estate, and the foreign investors foreclose on the mortgage, the foreign investors will wind up owning a USRPI. Under FIRPTA, the foreign investors will be subject to U.S. tax on gains from the sale of the USRPI. Furthermore, if the foreign investors earn rental income from the property, the rental income may be classified as effectively connected income, taxed at graduated rates on a net basis, or, perhaps worse, subject to 30 percent withholding tax on the gross rental income. Similar concerns apply to the foreclosure on a mortgage backed by property used in a trade or business in the United States. Use of U.S. Blocker Corporations If foreign investors are concerned that they may be engaged in activity that will cause their income to be effectively connected income (e.g., the origination or modification of debt, or the foreclosure on U.S. real estate), it may be prudent for the investors to form a U.S. corporation (sometimes referred to as a "blocker" corporation) to hold the debt. This can prevent the foreign investors from having to file U.S. tax returns and may also help insulate the foreign investors' other activities from U.S. taxation. It may also be prudent for this U.S. corporation to, in turn, be owned by one or more foreign corporations, in order to protect the foreign investors from the U.S. estate tax. As a further enhancement of the structure, it may be possible for the foreign investors to make portfolio interest loans to the U.S. corporation (assuming that the requirements set forth above are met), which may allow them to earn interest income free of U.S. federal income tax.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Tax Treaties The analysis above may change in some respects if the investors are resident in countries that are parties to income tax treaties with the United States. For example, under the terms of a particular treaty, interest income may not be subject to the 30 percent withholding tax even if it does not meet the requirements for the portfolio interest exemption. Furthermore, in certain cases, even if the U.S. activities cause the income from the distressed debt to constitute effectively connected income under regular U.S. tax principles, a treaty may prevent the income from being subject to U.S. tax. This analysis would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. Alternative Structures The above discussion does not cover all of the possible alternatives and permutations for foreign investment in distressed debt. For example, there are certain significant advantages that can be achieved by using a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC). A REMIC is a special purpose vehicle that is formed to hold a non-traded pool of mortgage loans and is generally exempt from entity-level U.S. tax. Similarly, a real estate investment trust (REIT) may provide foreign investors with significant benefits.

CONCLUSION With proper planning, there are many U.S. tax efficiencies that may be achieved by foreign investors in distressed debt issued by U.S. companies. However, it is critical that the foreign investors' income from the loans not be classified as income that is effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. This requires careful advance tax planning by foreign investors and/or the funds in which they invest. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

For questions or more information regarding tax opportunities and challenges with distressed debt, contact the author.

____________________ Notes 1 See,

e.g., "Cash Pours Into Distressed Real-Estate Funds as Investors Aim to 'Play Offense' ", The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2020. 2 This

alert only addresses certain U.S. federal income tax matters. It does not address other tax matters, such as U.S. federal non-income tax matters, state or local tax matters, or foreign tax matters. 3 In

the case of an obligation issued by a corporation, a 10 percent shareholder is any person that owns (directly, indirectly, or pursuant to certain constructive ownership rules) 10 percent or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote of the corporation. In the case of an obligation issued by a partnership, a 10 percent shareholder is any person that owns (directly, indirectly, or pursuant to certain constructive ownership rules) 10 percent or more of the capital or profits interest in the partnership. 4 For

this purpose, contingent interest includes, for example, interest that is determined by reference to: 1) receipts, sales, other cash flow, income or profits of the debtor or a related person; 2) a change in the value of property owned by the debtor or a related person; or 3) dividends, partnership distributions or similar payments made by the debtor or a related person. 5 GLAM

2009-010 (Sept. 22, 2009).

DISCLAIMER: Please note that the situation surrounding COVID-19 is evolving and that the subject matter discussed in these publications may change on a daily basis. Please contact your responsible Holland & Knight lawyer or the author of this alert for timely advice.

外国对不良债务的投资：独特的税务机会，但要提防陷阱原文作者：Seth J. Entin

重点摘要  因冠状病毒（COVID-19）的大流行而造成许多企业面临经济问题的情况已引起投资人对购买不良债务票券或投资于收购不良债务票券的基金产生浓厚兴趣。  如果满足某些条件，外国投资人可在无需缴纳美国税款的情况下从债务中赚取利息收入、或通过出售或清偿美国公司所发行的债务而赚取收入。  不过尽管有这些有利的规定，仍存在某些可能会导致外国投资人还是要就这些投资被征收美国税的陷阱。  本 Holland & Knight 提示文章讨论了一些重要的潜在美国联邦所得税机会以及外国投资人在投资美国不良债务中所面临的挑战。 ____________________ 因冠状病毒（COVID-19）的大流行而造成许多企业面临经济问题的情况已引起投资人对购买不良债务票券或投资于收购不良债务票券的基金产生浓厚兴趣。1 本 Holland & Knight 提示文章讨论了一些重要的潜在美国联邦所得税 2 机会及外国投资人在投资美国不良债务中所面临的挑战。

背景如果满足某些条件，外国投资人可以从美国公司发行的债务中赚取利息收入，而无需缴纳美国税。如果满足某些条件，外国投资人也可以通过出售或清偿美国公司发行的债务而赚取收入，而无需缴纳美国税。这些规定使陷于经济困境的美国公司的债务成为对外国投资人具有吸引力的一项投资工具。不过尽管有这些有利的规定，仍存在某些可能会导致外国投资人还是要就这些投资被征收美国税的陷阱。本提示文章首先概要介绍适用于外国投资人的美国税收制度。其后讨论了让外国投资人在无需缴纳美国税款的情况下从债务票券中赚取收入的某些特定有利规则。之后，本文讨论了可能导致外国投资人就来自不良债务的收入被征收美国税的一些问题、以及为解决这些问题而可能采取的一些（但非全部）方法。

外国人税收通常，外国人应按以下方式在美国纳税：有效关联收入在美国从事“贸易或业务”的外国人应就与该贸易或业务“有效关联”的收入（通常称为“有效关联收入”）缴纳美国联邦所得税。有效关联收入按 “净额”征税（即允许对此类收入进行扣除）；而税率则与适用于美国人士的累进税率相同。此外，对于外国公司，外国公司就未再转投资于美国贸易或企业的有效关联收人所获得的收益和利润，应被征收 30％的分支机构利得税（除非经条约减少）。根据 1980 年《外国投资房地产税法》（ FIRPTA），外国人通过出售美国房地产权益（USRPI）所获得的收入应作为有效关联收入征税。

30％的预扣税外国人还必须对某些并非有效关联收入的美国来源收入（例如美国来源的利息和股息）按固定的 30％的税率缴纳美国联邦所得税（除非经条约减少）。该税是按“总额”征收的（即不允许扣除）。一般而言，该税是通过预扣代收的，且通常被称为 30％的预扣税。但是，对这 30％的预提税有一个重要例外，即下文所讨论的“投资组合利息豁免”例外。投资组合利息豁免使外国人可以赚取美国来源的利息收入，而无需缴纳 30％的预提税。此外，除非获得的收益是有效关联收入（包括根据《外国投资房地产税法》规定出售美国房地产权益的收益），否则外国人无需就出售财产所得缴税。因此，外国人可能会出售债务票券而无需被征收美国税。

投资组合利息豁免 30％的预扣税不适用于外国人所获得美国来源的“投资组合利息”。这称为“投资组合利息豁免”。投资组合利息是满足某些特定要求的利息。一般而言，如果债务为“记名形式”的债务、且扣缴义务人收到载明该债务的收益所有权人不是美国人的 IRS W-8 表格，则该债务的利息构成投资组合利息。“记名形式”通常是指贷方对债务的权益只能通过由债务发行人（或其代理人）保有的簿记系统或通过缴回旧票券并发行新票券而转让。如果外国投资人收购的是非记名形式的贷款池，但债务是由发行记名形式的“穿透性证明”的信托或其他类型的实体所持有时，则税法允许其享受投资组合利息的待遇。。但是，投资组合利息豁免的适用受到某些限制。例如，投资组合利息豁免不适用于：  被视为有效关联收入的利息收入  借款人的“10％股东”所获得的利息 3  “或有”利息 4  银行根据其在日常贸易或业务过程中订立的贷款协议而提供的信贷延期所收取的利息

市场折扣根据一般的美国税收原则，在二级市场上以折扣价购买债务会产生所谓的“市场折扣”。该市场折扣根据公式在债务的剩余期限内累计增加，然后要求债务持有人在赎回或处置该债务时将市场折扣认列为普通收入。例如，投资人在二级市场以 7,000 万美元的价格购买了面额为 1 亿美元的票券。投资人持有票券直到其到期日，并收到全部 1 亿美元。按照美国一般税收原则，3000 万美元的市场折扣将作为普通收入征税。此外，在到期前支付的部分本金通常可以加快投资人对这一普通收入的认列。还好幸运的是如果市场折扣不是有效关联收入，那么外国人就不必就该市场折扣被征收美国税。这为外国投资人提供了一个可以在不需被征收美国税的情况下从不良债务中获得收益的巨大机会。

贷款的发放和修改一般而言，如果外国投资人在二级市场上买卖债券，这本身不应导致外国投资人的收入和从不良债务所获得的收益被视为有效关联收入。税法规定了“安全港”措施，根据该安全港措施，外国人不会因以自己的帐户进行“股票和证券”（包括债务票券）交易而被视为在美国从事贸易或业务。但是，如果外国人在美国发放贷款，上述安全港措施将不适用。因此，在许多情况下，外国人将因其在美国的贷款发放活动而被视为在美国从事贸易或业务，且他们从贷款中获得的收益将被作为有效关联收入而征税。根据国税局（IRS）的说法，即使贷款是由外国人的独立代理人提供时其结果亦同。5 如果外国人购买债务票券而后与借款人重新协商债务票券其效果如何？根据美国税务规则，对债务票券进行“重大修改”将被视为将一个债务票券（未修改的债务票券）转换成新的债务票券（修改后的债务票券）并废除了旧的债务票券。值得顾虑的是这可能被视为在美国发放贷款，从而可能导致外国人被视为在美国从事贸易或业务，而使从债务获得的收益按有效关联收入被征税。关于在美国修改债务是否会导致在美国进行贸易或业务的问题尚未被完全解决，该分析具有高度事实根据性。预计将从事此类活动的外国投资人应事先咨询美国税务顾问。此外，应该注意的是，即使债务的修改不会导致美国的贸易或业务的产生，如果修改后的债务具有“或有”利息（例如，利息的金额取决于债务人现金流量），这可能不符合上述规则所规定的投资组合利息豁免。此外，如果对外国投资人提供债务人公司的选择权或认股权证，则在某些情况下，根据上述 10％的股东限制，投资组合利息免除可能不适用。止赎如果不良债务票券是由美国房地产的抵押权担保，而外国投资人取消了抵押赎回权，那么外国投资人将拥有出售美国房地产权益。根据《外国房地产投资税法》（FIRPTA），外国投资人将就美国房地产权益（USRPI）而缴纳美国税。此外，如果外国投资人从该物业获得租金收入，则该租金收入可被归类为有效关联收入，以净额按累进税率征税，或者更糟的是，对租金总收入征收 30％的预扣税。类似的担忧也适用于对以美国的营业或商业财产作为担保的抵押权的止赎。美国阻隔公司的使用如果外国投资人担心自己从事的活动可能导致其收入成为有效关联收入（例如，债务的产生或修改或美国房地产的止赎），则成立一家美国公司（有时称为“阻隔”公司）来持有债务应是个聪明的做法。这可以防止外国投资人必须提交美国纳税申报表，也可以协助使外国投资人的其他活动与美国税收保持隔离。为了保护外国投资人免受美国遗产税的影响，该美国公司转而又由一个或多个外国公司来拥有可能也是个聪明的做法。而进一步优化结构安排，外国投资人可以向美国公司提供投资组合利息贷款（假设满足上述要求），这可能使他们可以赚取不会被征收美国联邦税的利息收入。

其他注意事项税收协定如果投资人居住在与美国订立所得税协定的国家中，则上述分析在某些方面可能会发生变化。例如，根据特定条约的条款，即使利息收入不满足投资组合利息豁免的要求，也可能无需缴纳 30％的预提税。此外，在某些情况下，即使美国的活动导致从不良债务获得的收益在美国一般税法原则下构成有效关联收入，条约也可能避免该收入被征收美国税。这种分析必须根据具体情况进行。替代结构安排以上讨论并未涵盖外国投资人对不良债务的投资的所有可能替代方案和方式组合。例如，使用房地产抵押投资渠道（REMIC）可以达到某些重大优势。REMIC 是一种特殊目的工具，是为持有非交易性的抵押贷款池而设立且通常免征向实体课征的美国税。同样地，房地产投资信托（REIT）可以为外国投资人带来重大利益。

结论通过适当的规划，外国投资人从美国公司发行的不良债务可能会实现许多美国税收效益。但是，至关重要的是，外国投资人从贷款中获得的收入不能被归类为与美国的贸易或业务有关的有效关联收入。这就要求外国投资人和 /或他们投资的基金进行仔细的事先税务规划。对于有关税收机会和不良债务挑战的疑问或更多信息，请联系作者。

____________________ 附注 1

例如，见《华尔街日报》，2020 年 4 月 21 日，“投资者将现金注入陷入困境的不动产基金中” 。

2 此提示文章仅处理某些美国联邦所得税问题。它不涉及其他税收问题，例如美国联邦非收入税收问题，州或地方税收问题

或外国税收问题。如果是公司发行的债务，则 10%的股东是指（直接，间接或根据某些推定所有权规则）拥有对公司享有投票权的所有类别的股票而合并表决权达 10%或以上的任何人。就合伙企业发行的债务而言，百分之十的股东是指拥有（直接，间接或根据某些推定所有权规则）百分之十或更多的合伙企业资本或利润权益的人。 3

为此目的，或有利息包括，例如参照以下各项确定的利息：1）债务人或相关人的收入，销售，其他现金流量，收入或利润；2）债务人或关连人士所拥有财产的价值变动；或 3）债务人或关连人士的股息，合伙分派或类似付款。 4

GLAM 2009-010（2009 年 9 月 22 日）。

免责声明：请注意，围绕 COVID-19 的情况正在发生变化，这些出版物中讨论的主题可能每天都在变化。请及时与相关负责的 Holland & Knight 律师或该提示的作者联系。

Significantly Expanded OFAC Reporting Requirement for Businesses, and OFAC Compliance Guidance Update By Brian Hayes The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. These sanction laws restrict and prohibit businesses from engaging in transactions occurring in or with a wide range of countries, companies and individuals across the globe. OFAC's authority to enforce U.S. sanctions extends to businesses located in foreign countries, and in the last two years alone it has imposed penalties exceeding $1 billion for sanctions violations. It is critical that Chinese businesses with even minimal U.S. contacts or presence have an effective sanctions compliance program and follow OFAC enforcement developments.

1. RECENT CHANGE IN THE LAW REQUIRES MORE BUSINESSES TO REPORT REJECTED TRANSACTIONS TO OFAC A recent change in the law requires that all individuals and organizations subject to U.S. jurisdiction report to OFAC business transactions rejected because of sanctions concerns. The reporting requirement previously only applied to financial institutions, and solely with regard to rejected funds transfer requests. Previous Practice The OFAC Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations (RPPR), 31 C.F.R. part 501, have long required financial institutions to report funds transfer requests that were rejected because processing them would violate U.S. sanctions. For example, if a financial institution learned that a U.S. customer sought to wire transfer funds in support of a commercial transaction to a third party in Iran (assuming no party involved in the transaction was subject to sanctions that would require the bank to freeze the funds, and that OFAC had not issued a license permitting the funds transfer), the bank would refuse to process the wire transfer request because it would violate U.S. sanctions imposed against Iran. OFAC regulations required that the financial institution report the rejected funds transfer request to OFAC within 10 business days. New Requirement The requirement to make sanctions-related reports to the government was significantly expanded on June 21, 2019, when OFAC made two important changes to the regulation relating to rejected business dealings. First, it was amended to make it applicable to all individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction – not just "financial institutions." Second, the reporting requirement was broadened to apply to any "transaction" – not just a "funds transfer" – that was rejected because it would violate U.S. sanctions. According to the new regulation, the reporting requirement applies to "transactions related to wire transfers, trade finance, securities, checks, foreign exchange, and goods or services" (emphasis added). 31 C.F.R. § 501.604(a)(3). Thus, in addition to greatly increasing the number of individuals and businesses required to report to OFAC, the new regulation expanded the applicability of the reporting obligation to nearly any business transaction that is rejected because of sanctions concerns. Importantly, sanctions violations are strict liability offenses. The government does not need to demonstrate that the business knew it was violating the law, or was negligent in doing so. If OFAC determines an offense occurred, the violator is liable. Failure to report a rejected transaction within 10 days as required by the regulations can result in adverse OFAC action, such as imposition of a civil monetary penalty, or referral to law enforcement for criminal investigation and/or prosecution. Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

OFAC's Most Recent Guidance Although OFAC invited public response to the newly amended regulation when it was published in June 2019, thus far OFAC has not issued guidance that narrows its scope in any significant fashion. On Feb. 20, 2020, OFAC published two "frequently asked questions" (Nos. 819 and 820) that address the new reporting requirement. The first appears only to reaffirm its broad nature. 819. Is the June 21, 2019 amendment to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'s Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations in effect? Am I required to comply with all requirements of the amended regulations? Yes, effective June 21, 2019, OFAC amended the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR part 501 (RPPR), to provide updated instructions and incorporate new requirements for parties filing reports on … rejected transactions. OFAC expects all U.S. persons and persons otherwise subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including parties that are not U.S. financial institutions, to comply fully with all requirements of this rule, including the expanded requirement in Section 501.604 of the RPPR to provide reports to OFAC regarding rejected transactions within 10 business days of the rejected transaction. (Previously, only U.S. financial institutions were required to submit reports to OFAC for rejected funds transfers.) Reports on rejected transactions are to be submitted to OFAC, preferably electronically, as specified by OFAC's Reporting and License Application Forms webpage. OFAC accepted comments from the public on this rule, which it continues to review. In addition, OFAC welcomes further feedback as we assess whether any clarification or modification to the rule is appropriate, including: additional information regarding the business impact of this rule; examples of rejected transactions that are proving challenging to report; the quantity of rejected transactions; and the types of information in the filer's possession for a rejected transaction report. Feedback and questions regarding the rule should be submitted to OFAC's Compliance Division by email at: OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov. The second FAQ clarifies that an organization reporting a rejected transaction to OFAC need not actively seek information from a counterparty that not otherwise in its possession solely to satisfy the reporting requirement. 820. I am required to submit a rejected transaction report to OFAC, but I do not have all the information that is required to be reported pursuant to 31 CFR § 501.604(b). Am I required to collect such information from my counterparty just to complete my rejected transaction report? OFAC expects U.S. persons and persons otherwise subject to U.S. jurisdiction to provide all information required by Section 501.604(b) of the RPPR that is in the filer's possession in a rejected transaction report, and generally does not expect reporters to seek further information from their counterparty solely to obtain additional information required to be reported under Section 501.604(b). However, OFAC would expect at a minimum that all rejected transaction reports include required information that is applicable in all reject scenarios (e.g., information regarding the submitter of the report, the date the transaction was rejected, the legal authority or authorities under which the transaction was rejected, and any relevant documentation received in connection with the transaction).

Ambiguities Remain Fundamental questions remain about the manner in which the rejected transaction rule will be enforced. For example, the regulations do not define what it means to "reject" a "transaction." If an organization receives a favorable offer to purchase a specified quantity of goods, but the offeror ceases communication with the seller after the seller makes inquiries seeking to assure itself that the proposed sale would not violate U.S. sanctions law, has the seller "rejected" a "transaction" in a manner that triggers the reporting obligation? If a trade finance lender declined to extend a line of credit secured by receivables based upon concerns developed during due diligence that the borrower might engage in conduct prohibited by U.S. sanctions, did the lender "reject" a "transaction" that must be reported? This is particularly critical because of the scope of OFAC's jurisdiction, which is much broader than the United States' jurisdiction in many other contexts, such as taxation. According to the regulations, in addition to financial institutions, the OFAC reporting requirement now applies to "any U.S. person (or person subject to U.S. jurisdiction)." In OFAC's view, this includes: [A]ll U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S. incorporated entities and their foreign branches. In the cases of certain programs, foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by U.S. companies also must comply. Certain programs also require foreign persons in possession of U.S.-origin goods to comply. Thus, for example, if a Chinese manufacturer that incorporates U.S.-origin goods into its products rejects an offer to sell to another party because it believes the purchaser resides in a country in which U.S. sanctions would prohibit the transaction, OFAC may view this as a rejected transaction that the RPPR requires to be reported. Additionally, in the sanctions context, "person subject to U.S. jurisdiction" is often understood to include a foreign corporation that is owned or controlled by a U.S. individual or business. Thus, even a Chinese business with no other U.S. presence or contact may be required to report a rejected transaction if a U.S. citizen owns or controls the organization. Although the legal duty for businesses to report transactions in which they declined to participate was previously limited to financial institutions that rejected a funds transfer request, the obligation to report rejected transactions has significantly expanded, and will impact many foreign businesses because of OFAC's broad jurisdiction. To mitigate the risk of OFAC enforcement action, businesses subject to U.S. jurisdiction must account for this reporting obligation in their sanctions compliance program.

2. OFAC'S "A FRAMEWORK FOR OFAC COMPLIANCE COMMITMENTS" OFAC has long advocated that businesses develop and implement an effective sanctions compliance program. For example, OFAC's Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines identify the existence, nature and adequacy of an organization's risk-based OFAC compliance program as a factor considered by the agency in resolving enforcement actions. For the first time, on May 2, 2019, OFAC issued a single document, "A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments," which categorically describes how an effective program should be designed and implemented. According to OFAC, the Framework was intended to "provide organizations â&#x20AC;Ś with OFAC's perspective on the five essential components of an effective risk-based sanctions compliance program." OFAC identified the five essential components of an effective sanctions compliance program (SCP) as: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Senior management commitment to the SCP Top to bottom and dynamic sanctions risk assessment System of internal controls addressing OFAC compliance Testing and auditing of the SCP

5. Training for appropriate employees on a periodic basis In the Framework, OFAC described in detail the manner in which organizations should approach each of these elements to establish an SCP that will meet OFAC expectations. In addition, based upon its assessment of prior administrative actions, OFAC included an appendix to the Framework that identifies 10 frequently seen "root causes" of sanctions violations: 1. Lack of a formal OFAC SCP 2. Misinterpreting, or failing to understand the applicability of, OFAC's regulations 3. Facilitating transactions by non-U.S. persons (including through or by overseas subsidiaries or affiliates) 4. Exporting or re-exporting U.S.-origin goods, technology, or services to OFAC-sanctioned persons or countries 5. Utilizing the U.S. financial system, or processing payments to or through U.S. financial institutions, for commercial transactions involving OFAC-sanctioned persons or countries 6. Sanctions screening software or filter faults 7. Improper due diligence on customers/clients (e.g., ownership, business dealings, etc.) 8. De-centralized compliance functions and inconsistent application of an SCP 9. Utilizing non-standard payment or commercial practices 10. Individual liability In the approximately 12 months since the Framework was released, OFAC has published notices relating to 20 enforcement actions. In late 2019, OFAC began regularly incorporating specific reference to the Framework and its components in its enforcement notices, highlighting the manner in which the Framework is informing OFAC's decision-making when addressing sanctions violations. For example, in an enforcement notice issued on Feb. 26, 2020, OFAC announced that Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques SCRL (SITA), headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, agreed to pay more than $7.8 million to settle its potential civil liability for providing aviation telecommunication services between 2013 and 2018 to certain airline customers who were designated by OFAC as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). According to OFAC, SITA conceded that at the time those customers were designated, its sanctions compliance program was primarily reactive, in that SITA would take up concerns as they arose, but did not address in detail issues regarding sanctions compliance. As a result, SITA ceased providing certain services to the SDGT entities, but not those telecommunication services that were the subject of the settlement. This led to 9,256 apparent violations of the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, according to OFAC. Under its enforcement guidelines, the base civil monetary penalty was more than $13 million. When discussing mitigating factors that led OFAC to reduce the settlement amount, OFAC included a lengthy description of changes that SITA had implemented to its SCP, most of which fall directly into the categories described as essential components in the Framework: Management commitment Appointed a dedicated global head of ethics and compliance Established a global trade board to monitor and vet compliance issues Established a trade compliance committee Risk assessment / internal controls Enhanced compliance review for new customers and suppliers Enhanced compliance review for activity in sanctioned countries Updated and created new sanctions compliance policies Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Testing and auditing Monitor and audit provision of services that led to violations Training SCP training for new employees Annual SCP training for all employees OFAC concluded its enforcement notice with a direct reference to the Framework and its relevance to the SITA investigation: As noted in OFAC's Framework for Compliance Commitments issued in May 2019, companies can mitigate sanctions risks by conducting risk assessments and exercising caution when engaging in business transactions with entities that are affiliated with, or known to transact with, OFAC-sanctioned persons or jurisdictions, or otherwise pose high risks due to their joint ventures, affiliates, subsidiaries, customers, suppliers, geographic location, or the products and services they offer. OFAC released the Framework approximately one year ago to provide guidance and recommendations for implementing an effective, risk-based SCP that will minimize the likelihood of sanctions violations. When doing so, OFAC suggested that those subject to its jurisdiction review its published settlements as a means to reassess and enhance their SCPs. By incorporating direct references to the Framework and its components into OFAC's settlement announcements, as was done in the SITA case, the agency is now demonstrating the manner in which this document is informing its decision-making when resolving sanctions violations.

3. CONCLUSIONS U.S. economic sanctions restrict and prohibit business transactions in and with a wide variety of countries, businesses and individuals across the globe. OFAC's recent change to the RPPR greatly expanded the requirement of businesses to report transactions to OFAC, and it is unclear how broadly it will interpret the new rule. Organizations subject to this new reporting requirement must react in a manner that mitigates the increased enforcement risk. Actions that should be considered include the following: First, SCPs must be updated to reflect the new "rejected transactions" reporting requirement. Although the SCPs of financial institutions presumably already account for the reporting of rejected funds transfer requests, those must be broadened to include any "rejected transaction." And businesses that are not financial institutions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which previously could take comfort in their exclusion from any requirement to report transactions they declined â&#x20AC;&#x201C; must adapt to this change and incorporate the new OFAC requirement into their SCPs as well. Organizations updating their SCPs to assure adherence to the new reporting requirement should consult the Framework when implementing those changes. In summary, companies should conduct a top-to-bottom assessment of where in its organization and operations sanctions concerns are most likely to result in rejected transactions, and focus compliance efforts in those areas. Procedures manuals and trainings should memorialize the protocols and controls put in place to address this compliance function, and adherence should be periodically tested. Senior management commitment to these new procedures should be evident throughout the organization. And while making these updates, businesses should strongly consider evaluating other compliance functions for consistency with the guidance and recommendations contained in the Framework. OFAC's deliberate effort to demonstrate the manner in which its tenets are informing enforcement decisions signals that companies which do not embrace the Framework do so at their own peril.

Finally, because of the lack of insight at this early stage as to how OFAC will interpret and enforce the "rejected transaction" reporting rule, companies subject to the new requirement should establish procedures that quickly escalate potentially reportable transactions for review by compliance professionals or counsel.

显著扩大的 OFAC 企业报告要求及 OFAC 合规指导意见的最新发展原文作者：Brian Hayes 美国财政部外国资产管制处（OFAC）根据美国外交政策和国家安全目标管理和执行经济和贸易制裁。这些制裁法律限制和禁止企业在或与全球许多国家、公司和个人进行交易。外国资产管制处执行美国制裁的权力扩大到设于外国的企业，且仅在过去两年里，它就对违反制裁的行为处以超过 10 亿美元的罚款。重要的是，即使那些鲜少与美国有联系或鲜少在美国有活动的中国企业也应制定有效的制裁合规计划，并跟进外国资产管制处的执法进展情况。

一。最近法律的变化要求更多的企业向外国资产管制处报告被拒绝的交易最近的一项法律变更要求受美国管辖的所有个人和组织向外国资产管制处报告因制裁问题而被拒绝的商业交易。之前的报告要求只适用于金融机构，而且只适用于被拒绝的资金转移请求。

之前的做法《外国资产管制处报告、程序和处罚条例》（RPPR）31 C.F.R.第 501 部分长期以来一直要求金融机构报告因处理资金转移请求违反美国制裁而被拒绝的资金转移请求。例如，如果一家金融机构得知一个美国客户试图将支持商业交易的资金电汇给伊朗的第三方（假设参与交易的任何一方都没有受到要求银行冻结资金的制裁，由于外国资产管制处没有颁发允许资金转移的许可证，该行将拒绝处理电汇请求，因为这将违反美国对伊朗的制裁。外国资产管制处的规定要求金融机构在 10 个工作日内向外国资产管制处报告被拒绝的资金转移请求。

新的要求 2019 年 6 月 21 日，外国资产管制处对有关拒绝商业交易的条例作出了两项重要修改，大幅扩大了向政府提交制裁相关报告的要求。首先，对其进行了修订，使其适用于受美国管辖的所有个人和实体，而不仅仅是“金融机构 ”。其次，报告要求扩大到适用于任何“交易”——而不仅仅是“资金转移”——被拒绝，因为这会违反美国的制裁。根据新的规定，报告要求适用于“与电汇、贸易融资、证券、支票、外汇和货物或服务有关的交易”（特别强调）。《联邦法规》第 31 章第 501.604（a）（3）条。因此，除了大大增加需要向外国资产管制处报告的个人和企业的数量外，新条例还将报告义务的适用范围扩大到几乎所有因制裁问题而被拒绝的商业交易。重要的是，违反制裁是无过失责任犯罪。政府不需要证明企业知道自己触犯了法律，或是疏忽大意。如果外国资产管制处认定发生了违法行为，违法者应承担责任。未按规定在 10 天内报告被拒绝的交易，可能会导致外国资产管制处采取不利行动，例如处以民事罚款，或移交执法部门进行刑事调查和/或起诉。

外国资产管制处最近的指导意见尽管外国资产管制处在 2019 年 6 月公布新修订的条例时，邀请公众对其作出回应，但迄今为止，外国资产管制处尚未发布任何显著缩小其范围的指导意见。2020 年 2 月 20 日，外国资产管制处公布了两个“常见问题”（编号 819 和 820），解决了新的报告要求。第一个问题似乎只是重申了它的广泛性。 819 号。2019 年 6 月 21 日对外国资产管制处（OFAC）报告、程序和处罚条例的修正是否有效？是否要求我遵守修订后的条例的所有要求？

是的，自 2019 年 6 月 21 日起生效，外国资产管制处修订了《报告、程序和处罚条例》，31 美国联邦法规第 501 部分（RPPR），以提供最新指示，并纳入各方提交关于……被拒绝交易报告的新要求。外国资产管制处希望所有美国人士和其他受美国管辖的人士，包括非美国金融机构的各方，完全遵守本规则的所有要求，包括《反外国资产保护条例》第 501.604 节中的扩展要求，在拒绝的交易。（之前，只有美国金融机构被要求向外国资产管制处提交拒绝资金转移的报告。）拒绝交易的报告应提交给外国资产管制处，最好是电子版，如外国资产管制处的报告和许可证申请表网页所规定。外国资产管制处接受公众对这一规则的评论，并继续审查。此外，在我们评估对该规则的任何澄清或修改是否适当时，外国资产管制处欢迎进一步的反馈，包括：关于该规则的业务影响的附加信息；证明难以报告的被拒绝交易的示例；被拒绝交易的数量；以及提交人拥有被拒绝的交易报告。有关该规则的反馈和问题应通过电子邮件提交给外国资产管制处的合规部门：外国资产管制处 Feedback@treasury.gov 。第二个常见问题解答阐明了向外国资产管制处报告被拒绝交易的组织，不必主动向交易相对方寻求那些除为满足报告要求其不会拥有的信息。 820 号。我被要求向外国资产管制处提交一份被拒绝的交易报告，但我没有《美国联邦法规汇编》第 31 章第 501.604（b）节要求的所有需报告的信息。我是否需要为了完成被拒绝的交易报告而从我的交易相对方那里收集这些信息？外国资产管制处希望美国人士和受美国管辖的其他人士提供《外国资产管制处报告、程序和处罚条例》第 501.604（b）节要求的所有信息，这些信息在被拒绝的交易报告中由提交人掌握，一般情况下，报告提交人不会仅仅为了获得第 501.604（b）节要求报告的额外信息而向其交易相对方寻求更多信息。但是，外国资产管制处至少希望所有被拒绝的交易报告都包括适用于所有拒绝情形的所需信息（例如，关于报告提交人、交易被拒绝日期、交易被拒绝所依据的一个或多个法律当局的信息，以及收到的与交易有关的任何相关文件）。

模糊的情形仍然存在关于被拒绝的交易规则将如何执行的基本问题仍然存在。例如，条例没有规定“拒绝”一项“交易”的含义。“ 如果一个组织收到了购买特定数量货物的优惠要约，但要约人在卖方进行查询以确保拟议的销售不会违反美国制裁法之后停止与卖方的通信，卖方是否以触发报告义务的方式“拒绝”了“交易”？如果贸易融资贷款人基于尽职调查期间产生的借款人可能从事美国制裁禁止的行为的担忧，拒绝延长以应收账款担保的信贷额度，贷款人是否“拒绝”了必须报告的“交易”？这一点尤其重要，因为外国资产管制处的管辖范围比美国在许多其他情况下的管辖范围要广得多，例如税收。根据条例，除金融机构外，外国资产管制处的报告要求现在适用于“任何美国人（或受美国管辖的人）” 。从外国资产管制处的观点，这些包括：所有美国公民和具有永久居民身份的外国人，无论其所在地、美国境内的所有个人和实体、所有美国注册实体及其外国分支机构。在某些项目中，美国公司拥有或控制的外国子公司也必须遵守。某些计划还要求拥有美国原产货物的外国人遵守。因此，例如，如果一家将美国原产货物纳入其产品的中国制造商拒绝向另一方出售产品的提议，因为它认为买方居住在美国制裁将禁止该交易的国家，外国资产管制处可将此视为《外国资产管制处报告、程序和处罚条例》要求报告的被拒绝的交易。此外，在制裁背景下，“受美国管辖的人”通常被理解为包括由美国个人或企业拥有或 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

控制的外国公司。因此，如果一名美国公民拥有或控制该组织，即使是没有其他美国机构或联系的中国企业也可能被要求报告被拒绝的交易。尽管企业报告其拒绝参与的交易的法律义务以前仅限于拒绝资金转账请求的金融机构，但报告被拒绝的交易的义务已大大扩大，而且由于外国资产管制处的广泛管辖权，将影响许多外国企业。为降低外国资产管制处执法行动的风险，受美国管辖的企业必须在其制裁合规计划中说明这一报告义务。

二。外国资产管制处的“外国资产管制处合规承诺框架” 外国资产管制处长期以来一直主张企业制定和实施有效的制裁合规方案。例如，外国资产管制处的《经济制裁执行指南》将组织基于风险的外国资产管制处合规计划的存在、性质和充分性确定为该机构在解决执行行动时考虑的一个因素。2019 年 5 月 2 日，外国资产管制处首次发布了一份文件“外国资产管制处合规承诺框架”，明确描述了如何设计和实施有效的计划。根据外国资产管制处的说法，该框架旨在“向各组织……提供外国资产管制处对有效的基于风险的制裁合规计划的 5 个基本组成部分的看法”。外国资产管制处确定了有效的制裁合规计划（“SCP”）的 5 个基本组成部分： 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

高级管理层对制裁合规计划的承诺自上而下和动态制裁风险评估处理外国资产管制处合规问题的内部控管制度制裁合规计划的测试和审计定期对适当员工进行培训

在该框架中，外国资产管制处详细描述了各组织应如何处理这些要素，以建立一个符合外国资产管制处期望的战略合作伙伴。此外，根据对以往行政行为的评估，外国资产管制处在《框架》中列入了一个附录，确定了 10 个常见的违反制裁的“根本原因”：缺乏正式的外国资产管制处制裁合规计划曲解或不理解外国资产管制处条例的适用性为非美国人的交易提供便利（包括通过或通过海外子公司或附属公司）向外国资产管制处制裁的个人或国家出口或再出口美国原产货物、技术或服务利用美国金融系统，或处理向美国金融机构或通过美国金融机构支付的款项，进行涉及外国资产管制处制裁人员或国家的商业交易 6. 制裁筛选软件或筛选错误 7. 对客户/客户的不当尽职调查（如所有权、商业交易等） 8. 去中心化遵从功能和制裁合规计划的不一致应用 9. 利用非标准支付或商业惯例 10. 个人责任 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

在该框架发布后的大约 12 个月内，外国资产管制处公布了 20 项执法行动的通知。2019 年底，外国资产管制处开始定期将框架及其组成部分的具体内容纳入其执行通知，强调框架在处理违反制裁行为时通知外国资产管制处决策的方式。例如，在 2020 年 2 月 26 日发布的一份执行通知中，外国资产管制处宣布，总部设在瑞士日内瓦的国际通信银行（SociétéInternationale de télécommunications Aéronautiques SCRL，简称“SITA”），同意支付 780 多万美元，以解决其在 2013 年至 2018 年期间向被外国资产管制处指定为特别指定全球恐怖分子（“SDGT”）的 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

某些航空客户提供航空电信服务的潜在民事责任。据外国资产管制处称，SITA 承认，在指定这些客户时，其制裁合规计划主要是被动的，因为 SITA 会在出现问题时处理这些问题，但没有详细处理有关制裁合规的问题。因此，SITA 停止向 SDGT 实体提供某些服务，但不向结算对象提供电信服务。据外国资产管制处称，这导致 9256 起明显违反全球恐怖主义制裁条例的行为。根据其执行准则，基本民事罚款超过 1300 万美元。在讨论导致外国资产管制处减少结算金额的缓解因素时，外国资产管制处详细说明了 SITA 对其制裁合规计划实施的变更，其中大部分直接属于框架中被描述为重要组成部分的类别：管理承诺任命一位全球伦理规范与合规总监成立了一个全球贸易委员会来监督和审查合规问题成立贸易合规委员会风险评估/内部控制加强对新客户和供应商的合规性审查加强受制裁国家活动的合规审查更新并创建了新的制裁合规政策测试和审计监督和审计导致违规行为的服务提供培训新员工制裁合规计划培训所有员工的年度制裁合规计划培训外国资产管制处在结束其执行通知时直接提到了框架及其与国际贸易协定调查的相关性：正如外国资产管制处 2019 年 5 月发布的合规承诺框架所述，公司可以通过进行风险评估和在与外国资产管制处受制裁人员或司法管辖区的关联实体或已知与之交易的实体进行业务交易时谨慎行事，以减轻制裁风险，或以其他方式造成高风险他们的合资企业、附属公司、子公司、客户、供应商、地理位置或他们提供的产品和服务。外国资产管制处大约一年前发布了这一框架，为实施一项有效的、基于风险的、将违反制裁可能性降至最低的战略合作计划提供指导和建议。在这样做时，外国资产管制处建议受其管辖的国家审查其公布的结算，以此作为重新评估和加强其制裁合规计划的手段。正如在 SITA 一案中所做的那样，通过将直接提及框架及其组成部分纳入外国资产管制处的和解公告，该机构现在正在展示在解决违反制裁行为时，本文件是如何告知其决策的。

三。结论美国的经济制裁限制和禁止在全球范围内与各种各样的国家、企业和个人进行商业交易。外国资产管制处最近对《外国资产管制处报告、程序和处罚条例》的修改极大地扩大了企业向外国资产管制处报告交易的要求，目前尚不清楚它将在多大程度上解释这一新规则。受此新报告要求约束的组织必须以减轻增加的执行风险的方式作出反应。应考虑的行动包括：

首先，必须更新制裁合规计划以反映新的“拒绝交易”报告要求。尽管金融机构的制裁合规计划可能已经负责报告被拒绝的资金转账请求，这些要求必须扩大到包括任何“被拒绝的交易”。而非金融机构的企业（以前可以放心地不必报告他们拒绝的交易）必须适应这一变化，并将新的外国资产管制处要求纳入其制裁合规计划。更新制裁合规计划以确保遵守新的报告要求的组织在实施这些更改时应咨询框架。总之，公司应该对其组织和运营中最有可能导致拒绝交易的制裁问题进行自上而下的评估，并将合规工作集中在这些领域。程序手册和培训应记录为解决此合规功能而制定的协议和控制措施，并应定期测试遵守情况。高级管理层对这些新程序的承诺应在整个组织中体现出来。在进行这些更新的同时，企业应强烈考虑评估其他合规职能，以确保与框架中包含的指导和建议保持一致。外国资产管制处有意证明其宗旨是以何种方式告知执法决定，这表明不接受该框架的公司这样做的后果自负。最后，由于在这一早期阶段缺乏对外国资产管制处将如何解释和执行“拒绝交易”报告规则的洞察力，受新要求约束的公司应建立程序，快速上报潜在的可报告交易，以供合规专业人员或法律顾问审查。

Employee and Benefits Considerations When Doing Business in the United States Checklist By Victoria H. Zerjav, Edward Diaz and Betsy L. Luxenberg

HIGHLIGHTS  Expanding a business into the United States can be an exciting yet challenging enterprise that may take into consideration a multitude of compliance regimes in the arenas of employment, employee benefits and executive compensation.  This Holland & Knight alert endeavors to simplify those complex rules and regulations by providing a list that could help guide a company through a multitude of considerations, including identifying essential parties, processes and compliance concerns in employee and benefits. ____________________ Expanding your international business into the United States is an exciting but sometimes daunting venture when it comes to the myriad rules and regulations at play governing employees and benefits. This alert endeavors to simplify those complex rules and regulations in the fields of employment, employee benefits and executive compensation law. There are many laws that apply to the areas of employment and employee benefits. On the federal side, tax laws under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), laws governing employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and employment discrimination laws are a few of the areas to be considered. State and local laws applicable to the places where the business is located or where the employees reside also can come into play. The below checklist should be considered a starting point, but by no means is a complete, exhaustive list of everything your company will need to undertake. This checklist will guide your company through a multitude of considerations, including identifying essential parties, processes and compliance concerns in employee and benefits.

1. IDENTIFYING THE EMPLOYER Identify the employer organization, whether it will be a subsidiary or related U.S. entity, a professional employer organization, or some other agency, including whether a new entity may need to be created to accomplish your business goals.

2. IDENTIFYING EMPLOYEES AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS a) In what states will the employees and other service providers work b) Who will be responsible for hiring, firing and employee oversight c) Development of policies/procedures/practices d) Registration to do business in U.S. states may be required based on the amount of business performed in a given state e) Classification of individuals as an independent contractor vs. an employee has implications in state and federal tax and employment laws

3. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Identifying key executives and common compensation expectations is important to securing desirable talent. a) Equity and phantom equity awards, compliance with tax and securities laws, including state "blue-sky" securities laws b) Short- and long-term bonuses, incentive arrangements and commissions programs c) Deferred compensation and special tax issues under IRC Section 409A d) Implications of IRC Sections 280G and 4999, including for non-U.S. entities with U.S. taxpayer employees, in transactions

4. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Understanding benefits mandated by law, costs of compliance with mandated benefits, and the costs of providing and complying with rules relating to voluntary benefits is key to proper design of benefits programs. Understanding market trends and expectations of employees is also valuable in attracting qualified workers. a) Retirement Benefits 1. Tax-qualified retirement programs may include defined contribution (typically 401(k) plans) and defined benefit plans and are also subject to the ERISA 2. Nonqualified retirement plans have restrictions to minimize negative tax impact and may generally be "top-hat" plans under ERISA b) Health Benefits 1. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) imposes obligations on employers to provide health benefits to employees of certain large companies 2. Plans may be under fully insured policies or employers can alternatively self-insure the benefits 3. Subject to ERISA 4. May include benefits to retirees, voluntary other than under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA) 5. Dental and vision coverage are voluntary c) Welfare Benefits 1. Short-term disability (consider whether the state requires statutory disability coverage, which may be an insured or uninsured ERISA benefit and a payroll practice) 2. Long-term disability 3. Life insurance 4. Severance 5. Typically subject to ERISA d) Common Fringe and Other Benefits 1. Tax-preferred benefits, such as health savings and dependent care, transportation/commuter expenses and certain education assistance Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

2. Relocation and non-business benefits such as car use, cellphone reimbursement and club membership are typically taxable benefits 3. Adoption assistance 4. Employee assistance programs

5. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS a) Confidentiality, non-competition and nonsolicitation, and intellectual property assignment agreements b) Although generally permissible to some degree in all states, the terms and enforceability of restrictive covenants are highly dependent on applicable state laws and likely cannot be resolved in a one-size-fits-all template

6. EMPLOYMENT TERMS a) Use of employment agreements is voluntary in the U.S. and at-will employment is common b) Use of offer letters to describe the material terms of employment is common c) Employee handbooks generally outline broad-based terms of employment and are encouraged

7. OTHER AREAS OF LEGAL COMPLIANCE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE WORKPLACE a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n)

Working hours and entitlements to overtime pay Wages and salaries Leave and holidays Prohibitions on workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation Union workers and collective bargaining agreements Termination and notice requirements, including when closing plans or mass layoffs Unemployment insurance Social Security benefits Accommodations for disabled workers Parental leave Health and safety in the workplace Employee privacy rights Background check compliance, which can also be highly state-specific Visa and immigration law compliance

Because there is no universal solution for all workplace challenges, Holland & Knight's goal is to offer practical ideas, targeted advice and experienced counsel that are specifically suited to each employer. Our labor, employee benefits and executive compensation attorneys assist companies in navigating the numerous rules relating to employees and their benefits in the United States. If you have any questions about our services or the information in this alert, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Labor, Employment and Benefits Group or Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Group.

在美国经营事业应注意的员工和福利事项清单原文作者: Victoria H. Zerjav、Edward Diaz 及 Betsy L. Luxenberg

重点摘要  到美国扩展业务可说是一项令人兴奋但又具有挑战性的事业，而它可能需要考虑到就业、员工福利和高管薪酬等领域的多种合规制度。  本 Holland ＆Knight 提示文章旨在通过提供本清单来协助引导公司进行多方面考虑，以简化那些复杂的规则和规定，而这些考虑包括确定员工和福利方面的基本要求、流程以及合规性问题。 ____________________ 到美国扩展国际业务是一个令人兴奋的事业，但当需要面对管理员工和福利等无数规则和法规时又令人生畏。本提示文章旨在简化雇佣、员工福利和高管薪酬法律领域中的那些复杂的规则和规定。适用于就业和员工福利领域的法律有很多。在联邦方面，《国内税收法》（IRC）下的种种税务法规、《 1974 年雇员退休收入保障法》（ ERISA）下的有关雇员福利计划的法律、以及就业歧视法都是应考虑的领域。适用于企业所在地或员工居住地的州和地方法律也将会起到作用。以下的清单应被视为处理此事项的起始点，但绝不是贵公司需要进行的所有工作的完整及穷尽清单。本清单将能引导贵公司进行多方面的考虑，其中包括确定员工和福利方面的基本当事人、流程以及合规性问题。

1. 确定雇主确定雇主机构，无论它是子公司或相关的美国实体，专业性的雇主机构或是其他机构，包括是否需要创建一个新的实体来实现您的业务目标。

2. 确定员工和其他服务提供商员工和其他服务提供商将在哪些州工作谁将负责招聘、解雇和员工监督制定政策/程序/做法根据在某一州开展的业务量，可能需要在美国某些州进行登记以从事业务活动 e) 将个人归类为独立承包商或是雇员，这在州和联邦税法和雇佣法下会产生不同的效果 a) b) c) d)

3. 高管薪酬确定主要管理人员和一般员工的薪酬期望对于获得理想的人才至关重要。 a) b) c) d)

股权和虚拟股权奖励、税收和证券法的遵循，包括州的“蓝天”证券法短期和长期奖金、奖励安排和佣金计划 IRC 第 409A 条下的递延补偿和特殊税收问题 IRC 第 280G 条和 4999 条对交易的影响，包括对具有美国纳税人雇员的非美国实体的影响

4. 员工福利了解法律规定的福利、法定福利遵守的成本、以及提供和遵守与自愿性福利有关的规则的成本将是如何适当设计福利计划的关键因素。了解市场趋势和员工的期望对于吸引合格的员工也很有价值。 a）退休福利 1. 符合税务规定的退休计划可能包括特定的缴款计划（通常为 401（k）计划）和特定的福利计划，并且也受到 ERISA 的约束 2. 而不符合税务规定的退休计划，为净量减少负面税收影响，通常可能是 ERISA 的“顶级”计划。 b）医疗福利 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

《患者保护和平价医疗法案》（PPACA）规定雇主有义务向某些大型公司的员工提供医疗福利可能完全透过投保来提供医疗福利计划、或者雇主也可以自行承担这些福利受 ERISA 约束可能包括对退休人员的自愿性福利，但《整合综合协调法》（COBRA）规定的除外牙科和视力保险是自愿性的

c）福利待遇 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

短期失能（考虑州是否要求法定的失能保险，这可能是有保险或无保险的 ERISA 福利和薪资作法）长期失能人寿保险资遣费通常受 ERISA 约束

d）一般的额外福利和其他优惠 1. 2. 3. 4.

税收优惠福利，例如医疗储蓄和家属护理，交通/通勤费用以及某些教育援助搬迁和非商业福利（例如车辆使用，手机报销和俱乐部会员格），而这些通常是应税福利收养协助员工援助计划

5. 限制性契约 a) 保密、不竞争、不招揽、以及知识产权转让协议 b) 尽管所有各州通常都在某种程度上允许使用限制性契约，但限制性契约的条款和可执行性在很大程度上取决于适用的州法律，并且可能无法用“一刀切”的合约模板来处理

6. 雇用条款 a) 在美国雇佣协议的使用是自愿的，且随意性雇佣是普遍的作法 b) 通常使用录取通知书来描述雇用的重要条款 c) 员工手册通常概述了广泛的雇用条件，而其使用受到鼓励

7. 工作场所应处理的其他法律合规领域 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n)

工作时间和享有加班费的权利工资和薪金休假和假期禁止工作场所的骚扰，歧视和报复工会员工和集体协商协议终止和通知要求，包括结束计划或大规模裁员时的通知失业保险社会安全福利配合残疾人士的设施安排育儿假工作场所的健康与安全员工隐私权背景检查合规性，各州可能有很不同的规定签证和移民法的遵循

由于没有一种方案可以解决所有工作场所面临的挑战，因此 Holland＆Knight 的目标是提供特别适合每个雇主的实用想法、针对性建议和具有丰富经验的咨询顾问。我们的劳工，员工福利和高管薪酬律师协助公司在美国处理与员工及其福利有关的许多规则所规定的事项。如果您对我们的服务或此提示文章中的信息有任何疑问，请联系作者或 Holland ＆ Knight 的劳工、就业和福利小组或雇员福利和执行补偿小组的任何成员。

Immigration Under COVID-19: Considerations for Employers with H-1B Visa Workers By Tara L. Vance and Erika Royal

HIGHLIGHTS  The COVID-19 crisis has led to many changes to employee-related immigration processes and procedures, and it is critical for employers to protect themselves as they make decisions surrounding continuing business operations.  This Holland & Knight's alert focusing on immigration under COVID-19 is a discussion of considerations that employers with H-1B visa workers should take into account when making employment decisions during the pandemic. ____________________ Employers are facing issues related to their workforce to a degree never experienced before due to COVID-19, and it is critical for employers to protect themselves as they make decisions surrounding continuing business operations. There have been many relevant changes to employee-related immigration processes and procedures as a result of COVID-19. This Holland & Knight's alert focusing on immigration under COVID-19 is a discussion of considerations that employers with H-1B visa workers should take into account when making employment decisions during the pandemic. At this time, employers are facing increasingly difficult decisions regarding how to manage their employees and keep their doors open during business slowdowns related to COVID-19. Inevitably, many employers have been forced to lay off or furlough some or all of their employees. This alert will address the tough decisions faced by those employers with H-1B visa holder employees.

WHAT IS A LAYOFF? In general, a layoff is a separation from employment due to a lack of available work. It is usually not associated with any performance-related reason, and the employee has no expectation of returning to work. This is the typical situation when an employee is terminated without cause.

WHAT IS A FURLOUGH? A furlough is a mandatory and temporary leave of absence where the employer and employee have the expectation that the employee will return to work or be restored from a reduced work schedule. Furloughs are often required by employers who are trying to avoid terminating the employment relationship but who do not have enough cash to make payroll or whose business is very slow. In most cases, the slowdown is expected to be temporary. Furloughed employees often are eligible to continue to receive their employee benefits and may also collect unemployment insurance for the reduction in their work schedule.

WHY ARE H-1B VISA HOLDERS TREATED DIFFERENTLY? Prior to an individual receiving H-1B visa status enabling him or her to work in the U.S., the employer must file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and H-1B visa petition forms with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In these forms, the employer must attest to: 1) the terms of the visa holder's employment, including the prevailing wage rate of similarly employed individuals in the region, 2) the salary to be paid to the employee and 3) the location in which the individual will work. Employer layoffs or furloughs can change the terms and conditions of employment that were provided to the DOL and the USCIS in the underlying LCA and H-1B visa petition forms, and potentially result in liability for the employer.

WHAT HAPPENS TO AN H-1B VISA HOLDER WHO IS LAID OFF? When an H-1B visa holder is laid off, their H-1B visa status effectively ends because the foreign national's H-1B visa status is tied to the terms and conditions of the employment with that specific employer. As such, that foreign national has a reasonable period of time (generally, not to exceed the shorter of the individual's authorized period of stay or 60 days) to leave the U.S. or secure a different visa status. If the H-1B visa holder is able to find a new employer willing to sponsor him or her, that new employer will need to file a new LCA with the DOL detailing the prevailing wage rate, salary to be paid to the H-1B employee and location of employment. Once the application is approved by the DOL, the new employer must file an H-1B visa petition with the USCIS, to secure new H-1B visa status for the laid off H-1B visa holder.

WHAT IS AN EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY WHEN LAYING OFF AN H-1B VISA HOLDER? Upon terminating the employment of an H-1B visa holder, an employer is required to 1) withdraw the underlying LCA filed with the DOL, 2) notify the USCIS of the termination of employment and 3) pay the "reasonable cost of return transportation" for the employee (but not his or her family) to his or her home country. These requirements do not apply if the employee voluntarily terminates his or her employment prior to the expiration of his or her H-1B admission period or is terminated once the authorized period of stay has expired.

WHAT HAPPENS TO AN H-1B VISA HOLDER WHO IS FURLOUGHED? An H-1B visa holder who is furloughed must continue to receive the required salary indicated on the underlying LCA filed with the DOL and H-1B visa petition forms filed with the USCIS. Any material change to the terms and conditions of the employment – such as a reduction in salary (discussed below) to what is stated in the underlying forms, a reduction in hours from full time to less than full time or a change in employment location outside the intended region – requires that the employer first file an amended LCA with the DOL and H-1B visa petition forms with the USCIS to have such material change(s) approved by the DOL and USCIS.

CAN AN EMPLOYER REQUIRE A FURLOUGHED H-1B WORKER TO USE ACCRUED PAID TIME OFF OR SICK LEAVE? In certain situations, this may be possible, but such situations should be reviewed with immigration and labor counsel to ensure adherence to H-1B requirements and the paid leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The DOL has indicated that furloughed employees are not eligible for paid leave under the FFCRA. In general and unless otherwise prohibited by state law or the employer's policies, employers may require furloughed H-1B workers to exhaust their accrued paid time off, as long as workers are not required to do so before taking any leave for which they may be eligible under the paid sick Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

leave provisions of the FFCRA. However, if the furlough period is extended, employers are still expected to pay the H-1B visa workers their regular salaries through the furlough period.

CAN AN H-1B VISA HOLDER WORK REMOTELY DURING THE PANDEMIC? Many employers have instituted remote work policies so that individuals are able to be productive while adhering to social distance recommendations and to help "flatten the curve" of COVID-19. In the LCA and H-1B visa petition forms filed with the DOL and USCIS, respectively, the employer attests to a number of things, including the location(s) from which the employee will be working (as well as the prevailing wage rate of similarly employed workers in the same regional area and the salary to be paid to the employee). The prevailing wage rate provided to the DOL on the LCA is typically determined by county, with various counties often grouped together. As such, it is important for the employer to consider the DOL's classification of the "area of intended employment" for LCA purposes when changing the work location. In general, as long as the remaining employment conditions remain the same, an H-1B visa holder can work from a new worksite in the same area of employment attested to in the LCA and H-1B visa petition forms without having to advise the DOL or USCIS.

WHAT IS AN EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE WORKSITE AT WHICH AN H-1B VISA HOLDER WORKS? In a March 20, 2020, release from the DOL's Office of Foreign Labor Certification regarding operations during COVID-19, the DOL confirmed that if an H-1B worker starts working from a new worksite within the same area of intended employment, such as the employee's home office located within the same areas noted for LCA purposes, a new LCA does not need to be filed with the DOL. However, the DOL has advised that the employer should provide either electronic or hard-copy notice of the new employment location to workers at the new worksite location(s) for at least 10 calendar days unless direct notice, such as via email, is provided. If the new work location is outside the intended worksite location as reflected in the underlying LCA, the employer can take advantage of the short-term placement provisions in the law as long as all of the strict regulatory requirements are met. If the short-term placement provisions are not able to be met, an amended H-1B visa petition must be filed, including a new LCA filed with the DOL.

WHAT IF THE EMPLOYER INSTITUTES ACROSS-THE-BOARD SALARY REDUCTIONS? The immigration regulations, DOL and the USCIS have not addressed across-the-board salary reductions, which are increasingly common during the current pandemic. However, in 2003, the American Immigration Lawyers Association posed a question to USCIS asking USCIS to confirm if an amended H-1B visa petition would be required if, due to across-the-board salary reductions, an H-1B visa worker earned less than the offered salary stated on the H-1B visa petition filed with USCIS but continued to be paid above the prevailing wage certified on the LCA filed with the DOL. USCIS consulted with the DOL and responded as follows: "The DOL is sensitive to the fact that wages can and sometimes do go up and down based on economic conditions. In the circumstances described in your question, there would be no need for a new LCA or a new [H-1B visa petition] provided the employer was still paying the "required wage." (The "required wage" is the higher of the applicable prevailing wage rate of similarly employed individuals in the area of intended employment or the actual wage to be paid to the employee, as reflected on the LCA.) The response further stated that any change in the H-1B employee's wage must be disclosed in the subsequent H-1B visa petition filed with the USCIS and that it is important to document any wage change in the employer's LCA Public Access File.

HOW CAN HOLLAND & KNIGHT ASSIST YOU? Holland & Knight has a solid team of labor and employment, immigration, transactional and litigation lawyers very skilled at analyzing options for an employer to take, preparing and submitting petitions and applications for immigration and employment benefits, and suing the government, as and when necessary. Our attorneys are available to assist you in discussing options and taking any action needed. We encourage you to review our other alerts in this series relating to immigration under COVID-19:    

Immigration Procedural Updates, Changes and Suspensions as a Result of COVID-19 Immigration Under COVID-19: Public Charge Rule Immigration Under COVID-19: U.S. Halts Entry of Certain Foreign Nationals to Protect Labor Market Immigration Under COVID-19: Order Halts Additional Foreign Entry to Protect U.S. Labor Market

For information regarding a specific situation within your organization, contact authors Tara Vance and Erika Royal or another member of Holland & Knight's Immigration, Nationality and Consular Team or Labor, Employment and Benefits Group.

COVID-19 下的移民：雇佣 H-1B 签证员工的雇主应注意事项原文作者：Tara L. Vance 及 Erika Royal

重点摘要  COVID-19 危机导致与员工有关的移民程序和手续发生了许多变化，雇主在做出关于如何延续其事业的决策时该如何保护自己是一重要的问题。  本 Holland ＆ Knight 提示文章主要关注 COVID-19 下的移民问题，讨论了在大流行期间做为 H-1B 签证工作人员的雇主做出雇用决定时应考虑的注意事项。 ____________________ 雇主因 COVID-19 而面临与劳动力有关的问题，其程度前所未有，因此，雇主在做出关于如何延续其事业的决策时该如何保护自己是一重要的问题。由于 COVID-19，与员工相关的移民程序和手续发生了许多相关变更。本 Holland ＆ Knight 提示文章主要关注 COVID-19 下的移民问题，讨论在大流行期间做为 H-1B 签证工作人员的雇主做出雇用决定时应考虑的注意事项。目前，在 COVID-19 导致相关行业业务量降低的时刻，雇主们面临着如何管理员工以及如何继续营业等越来越困难的决定。不可避免地，许多雇主被迫裁员或要求部分或全部雇员休无薪假。此提示文章将谈论如何解决雇有 H-1B 签证员工的雇主所面临的艰难决定。

什么是裁员？一般而言，裁员是因为缺乏工作而需解聘员工的情形。它通常与任何绩效相关的原因都没有关系，并且员工不期待再能重返工作岗位。这是员工无故被解雇的典型情况。

什么是无薪假？无薪假是强制及临时性的休假，而在该情况下，雇主和雇员期待雇员能够重返工作岗位或从减少的工作日程中回复到原来的状况。没有足够的现金来发工资或业务非常缓慢的雇主经常需要透过无薪假的实施以试图避免终止雇佣关系。在大多数情况下，这些经济放缓的情况预计是暂时性的。因无薪假而失去工作机会的员工通常有资格继续领取员工福利，还可能会因工作时间的减少而领取失业保险。

为什么对 H-1B 签证持有人有不同的对待？在使一个员工获得 H-1B 签证身份而能够在美国工作之前，雇主必须向美国劳工部（DOL）提交劳动条件申请（ LCA），并向美国移民局（USCIS）提交 H-1B 签证申请表。在这些表格中，雇主必须证明：1）签证持有人的雇用条款，包括该地区类似就业人员的现行工资费率； 2）要支付给雇员的工资；以及 3）员工个人将从事工作的地点。雇主的裁员或无薪假措施可能会更改劳动条件申请和 H-1B 签证申请中提供给美国劳工部和移民局的雇用条款和条件所依据的信息，并可能导致雇主承担责任。

被解雇的 H-1B 签证持有人会怎样？ H-1B 签证持有人被解雇后，他们的 H-1B 签证身份实际上也终止了，因为外国国民的 H-1B 签证身份与该特定雇主的雇用条款和条件有关。因此，该外国国民有一段合理的时间（通常不超过该人的被授权居留的时间或 60 天两者中较短的时间）离开美国或获得不同的签证身份。如果 H-1B 签证持有人能够找到愿意赞助他的签证申请的新雇主，则该新雇主将需要向美国劳工部提交新的劳动条件申请，详细说明现行工资费率、将支付给 H-1B 雇员的工资及其就业地点。一旦美国劳工部批准了申请，新雇主必须向美国移民局提交 H-1B 签证申请，以确保被解雇的 H-1B 签证持有人获得新的 H-1B 签证身份。

解雇 H-1B 签证持有人时，雇主的责任是什么？终止雇用 H-1B 签证持有人时，雇主必须 1）撤销向美国劳工部提交的基本劳动条件申请；2）通知美国移民局该终止雇用；以及 3）向雇员（但非其家人）支付使其回国的“合理返程交通费用”。如果员工在其 H-1B 入境期限到期前自愿终止其工作、或者在授权的期间到期时被终止雇佣，则这些要求不适用。

H-1B 签证持有人被要求休无薪假会怎样？被要求休无薪假的 H-1B 签证持有人必须继续收到向美国劳工部提交的基本劳动条件申请和向美国移民局提交的 H-1B 签证申请表上所示的所需工资。雇用条款和条件的任何重大变化，例如将工资（如下所述）减少到所述表格中规定的数额、从全职减少到少于全职的工时，或者发生工作变成在预期的工作地区外进行等---将造成雇主需首先向美国劳工部提交修订的劳动条件申请，及向美国移民局提交 H-1B 签证申请表，以取得美国劳工部及移民局对此类重大变更的批准。

雇主可以要求一名因无薪假而失去工作的 H-1B 员工使用累积的带薪休假或病假吗？在某些情况下，这是可能的，但应与移民和劳工法律顾问进行进一步审查，以确保遵守 H-1B 要求和《家庭首次冠状病毒应对法》（FFCRA）的带薪休假规定。美国劳工部表示，休无薪假的雇员不符合 FFCRA 规定的带薪休假资格。一般而言，除非州法律或用人单位的政策另有禁止，否则用人单位可要求休无薪假的 H-1B 员工用完他们累积的带薪休假，只要员工在休无薪假前无须休完根据 FFCRA 的带薪病假规定他们可享有的带薪假。但是，如果无薪假被延长，雇主仍被期待在无薪假期间向 H-1B 签证工作人员支付其正常工资。

大流行期间 H-1B 签证持有人可以远程工作吗？许多雇主制定了远程工作政策，以便个人能够在遵守社交距离建议的同时提高工作效率，并帮助“拉平 COVID19 的案例增加曲线”。雇主分别在向美国劳工部移民局提交的劳动条件申请和 H-1B 签证申请表中，保证了很多事情，包括雇员将工作的地点（以及当前同一地区的类似受雇员工的现行工资费率和以及应支付给该雇员的工资）。在劳动条件上提供给美国劳工部的现行工资费率通常由郡县决定，且许多不同的郡县通常会归类为一区。因此，对于雇主而言，在更改工作地点时出于劳动条件申请的目的，应考虑美国劳工部对“预期就业区域”的分类。通常，只要其余的雇用条件保持不变，H-1B 签证持有人就可以在劳动条件申请和 H-1B 签证申请表中保证的同一就业地区的新工作地点工作，而无需通知美国劳工部或移民局。

当 H-1B 签证持有人的工作地点发生变化时，雇主应承担的责任是什么？在 2020 年 3 月 20 日，美国劳工部对外劳务认证办公室发布了有关 COVID-19 期间的操作的信息，美国劳工部确认，如果 H-1B 员工开始在同一预期就业区域内的新工作地点工作，例如如果雇员的在家办公地点位于针对劳 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

动条件申请目的的相同区域内，则无需向美国劳工部提交新的劳动条件申请。但是，劳工部建议雇主应在至少 10 个日历日内向新工作地点的工人提供新就业地点的电子或纸质通知，除非提供了直接通知（例如通过电子邮件）。如果新的工作地点超出了潜在劳动条件申请中所反映的预期工作地点区域，则只要满足所有严格的监管要求，雇主就可以利用法律中的短期安置规定。如果不能满足短期安置要求，则必须提交经修改的 H-1B 签证申请，包括向美国劳工部提交的新的劳动条件申请。

如果用人单位全面减薪怎么办？移民法规、劳工部和移民局没有对在当前的大流行中越来越普遍全面的减薪现象的问题提出处理的方法。但是，在 2003 年，美国移民律师协会向美国移民局提出了一个问题，要求美国移民局确认因全面减薪而导致 H-1B 签证员工收入低于向美国移民局提交的 H-1B 签证申请中规定的工资（但仍要高于向美国劳工部提交的劳动条件申请的区域的现行工资费率时）是否需要提交修订的 H-1B 签证申请。美国移民局与劳工部进行了磋商，并做出如下回应：“ 劳工部意识到工资可能会且有时会根据经济状况而上下波动。在您所描述的情况下，不需要新的劳动条件申请或新的[H-1B 签证申请]，前提是雇主仍在支付“规定的工资”。（“规定的工资”是指在预期就业或实际工作区域中类似受雇的个人的适用的现行工资费率或劳动条件申请中所反映的实际支付的工资两者中较高者）。答复还指出，H-1B 雇员工资的任何变化都必须在随后向移民局提交的 H-1B 签证申请中予以披露，并且对于在雇主的劳动条件申请公共访问文件中记录任何工资变动。

HOLLAND & KNIGHT 能如何协助您？ Holland & Knight 拥有一支由劳动和就业，移民，交易和诉讼律师组成的坚强团队，他们非常擅长分析可供雇主采行的各种方案、准备和提交移民和就业福利的申请书，并在必要时起诉相关政府部门。我们的律师可以帮助您讨论选择方案并采取任何必要的措施。我们鼓励您查看本系列中与 COVID-19 下的移民有关的其他提示文章：  由于 COVID-19 而导致的移民程序更新、变更和中止  COVID-19 下的移民：公共负担规则  COVID-19 下的移民：美国停止某些外国人入境以保护劳动力市场  COVID-19 下的移民：为保护美国就业市场而暂停某些外国国民入境的行政命令有关贵司特定情况的问题，请联系作者 Tara Vance 和 Erika Royal 或 Holland ＆ Knight 的移民、国籍和领事团队、劳工、就业和福利小组的其他成员。

About This Newsletter 有关本期刊 Information contained in this newsletter is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel. Holland & Knight lawyers are available to make presentations on a wide variety of China-related issues. 本期刊所刊载的信息仅供我们的读者为一般教育及学习目的使用。本期刊并不是为作为解决某一法律问题的唯一信息来源的目的所设计，也不应被如此使用。此外，每一法律管辖区域的法律各有不同且随时在改变。如您有关于某一特别事实情况的具体法律问题，我们建议您向合适的律师咨询。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的律师能够对许多与中国相关的问题提出他们的看法及建议。

About the Authors 关于本期作者 Edward Diaz serves as the Practice Group Leader of the firm's Labor, Employment and Benefits Practice. He has extensive experience defending management and corporate clients in litigation of employment discrimination claims before federal and state courts, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Florida Commission on Human Relations. He has served as trial counsel for clients in jury trials, labor and employment arbitrations administrative proceedings, and pre-litigation resolution processes. Seth J. Entin is a tax attorney who focuses his practice on international taxation. He was named Miami Lawyer of the Year in Tax Law for 2016 by The Best Lawyers in America guide. He has experience handling international taxation of high-net-worth individuals, international corporate taxation, Internal Revenue Service international tax audits and litigation, and offshore voluntary disclosures. Brian Hayes is the leader of the firm's Midwest White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice. Drawing on his years of leadership in law enforcement and experience as an FBI special agent, he confidently provides seasoned advice to boards, audit committees and executive managers in a number of highly regulated industries. His practice will focus on advising organizations and individuals responding to government investigations, conducting internal investigations, and providing guidance on regulatory compliance and complex civil litigation. Betsy L. Luxenberg is a business attorney who practices in the area of corporate services, with a particular emphasis on employee benefits and executive compensation. She counsels employers and private and public, including tax-exempt and entities on a variety of employee benefits issues, such as qualified retirement plans, fringe benefits, executive and equity compensation arrangements, as well as health and welfare plans arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Erika Royal has extensive experience defending management and corporate clients against individual, collective and class action employment-related claims. She has litigated numerous discrimination and retaliation claims arising from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Whistleblower Act, Florida's Workers' Compensation Retaliation statute and other federal, state and local employment-related statutes. Tara L. Vance provides legal representation in most areas of immigration and nationality law affecting individuals, corporations and other businesses, as well as advises clients with certain family-based immigration matters. She is experienced in assisting clients with developing strategic plans for bringing employees to the U.S. to work and employing foreign nationals following a merger or acquisition. She advises foreign and domestic startup companies, mid- and large-size entities, and nonprofit organizations in obtaining immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. She also advises on related compliance issues, including with respect to Form I-9 issues and the EB-5 immigrant investor program. Victoria H. Zerjav provides sophisticated client counseling as an executive compensation and employee benefits attorney. She has extensive experience in executive compensation, employee benefits and employee relations, including in connection with mergers and acquisitions and other strategic transactions. She regularly represents Fortune 1000 companies, private equity-backed businesses and venture capital entities with respect to complex employee benefit plan and compensation issues. She counsels management and boards in corporate governance and designing effective compensation arrangements, and counsels individual executives on compensation-related concerns that arise before, during and after employment relationships.

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系 Primary Contacts 主要联系人： Hongjun Zhang, Ph.D. 张红军博士 Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.5906 hongjun.zhang@hklaw.com

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律师 San Francisco +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515 juan.alcala@hklaw.com

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910 robert.ricketts@hklaw.com

Leonard A. Bernstein | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9521 leonard.bernstein@hklaw.com

Sophie Jin | Washington, D.C. +1.202.469.5179 sophie.jin@hklaw.com

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006 luis.rubio@hklaw.com

Christopher W. Boyett | Miami +1.305.789.7790 christopher.boyett.@hklaw.com

Roth Kehoe | Atlanta +1.404.817.8519 roth.kehoe@hklaw.com

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518 evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409 vito.costanzo@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991 robert.labate@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121 jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746 joe.dewey@hklaw.com

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002 alejandro.landa@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482 vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553 david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411 jeffrey.mittleman@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645 shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950 matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481 leonard.gilbert@hklaw.com

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183 ron.oleynik@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480 stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.1.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588 doug.praw@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551 charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9539 paul.jaskot@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.1.745.5940 jose.zapata@hklaw.com