澳洲家事法院眼中的家庭全权信托
君益诚
前言
君益诚处理过诸多涉及澳大利亚的业务，在此基础上联盟成立了澳洲业务团队，团队成员包括多位能以英语为熟练工作语言的中国律师以及澳大利亚注册律师，其中王欲弘律师在中澳法律、投资、贸易、移民等业务领域深耕多年，还运营着以投资业务为主的澳洲基金和澳中投资平台。团队国际法律顾问祝福律师拥有澳洲律师牌照近十年，作为在澳大利亚长大的华人，熟悉中澳两国文化，处理了大量中澳跨境法律事务，经验丰富。
澳洲业务团队可为君益诚提供与中国-澳大利亚有关的投资、贸易、移民、跨国婚姻、诉讼等全方位、一站式的商业和法律服务。
澳洲家事法院眼中的家庭全权信托
Family Discretionary Trusts in the Eyes of the Australian Family Court
本周的文章将重点介绍澳大利亚1975年《家庭法》是如何对待信托问题的，并为起草法律文件提供指导。
This week’s article will focus on how Trusts are treated according to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the “Act”) and to provide guidance to legal drafters.
一、简介
Introduction
信托起源于英格兰，具有悠久且完善的法律渊源，其最初的形式是，一人（“资金提供方”）将土地转让给另一人（“受托人”），该人将为第三人（“受益人”）的利益而持有土地。随着时间的推移，许多信托的模式不断演变，其中包括：
• 家庭（或全权）信托；
• 固定信托；
• 单位信托（固定信托的一种形式）；
• 混合信托（全权信托与单位信托的交叉）；
• 遗嘱信托；
• 养老基金。
然而，本文将专注于家庭全权信托（家庭信托）。
Trusts have a long and established legal history originating from England, in its original form, one person (the “settlor”) would convey land to another (the “trustee”) which is to be held for the benefit of a third person (the “beneficiary”). Over time, many forms of trust structures have evolved, these include:
• family (or discretionary) trusts,
• fixed trusts,
• unit trusts (a form of fixed trust),
• hybrid trusts (cross between discretionary trusts and unit trusts),
• testamentary trusts, and
• superannuation funds.
However, for the purposes of this article, we will focus exclusively on Family discretionary trusts (family trusts).
二、家庭信托
Family Trusts
家庭信托主要用于保护和增加代际家庭财富，以保护资产免受债权人的追偿，并最大限度地减少纳税。这种“保护”是通过信托能够将资产的合法所有人（由受托人持有）与受益人的利益（称为纯粹的期望）分开的途径来实现的。在没有担保或保证协议以及不适用破产追回规则的情况下，信托财产通常会被隔离于针对受益人的法律索赔，而这种法律索赔一般会波及债权人和配偶。
但是，澳大利亚高等法院在2008年Kennon诉Spry一案中的大多数决议确认了《家庭法》的长臂管辖，并削弱了信托模式在婚姻或事实关系（即“婚姻关系”）中对当事人的保护。
Family trusts are predominantly used to preserve and increase intergenerational family wealth, protect assets from creditor claims and for tax minimisation purposes. This “protection” is achieved through the trust’s ability to separate the legal ownership of an asset (held by the trustee) from the beneficiaries’ interest (termed as a mere expectancy). In the absence of security or guarantee arrangements and the application of bankruptcy clawback rules, the trust property is generally quarantined from legal claims made against beneficiaries, which would ordinarily include both creditors and spouses.
However, the High Court of Australia’s majority decision in Kennon v Spry [2008] HCA 56 confirmed the long arm of the Family Law Act and diminished the protection a trust structure would afford to parties of a marriage or de facto relationship (the “relationship”).
三、信托财产和《家庭法》
Trust Property and the Family Law Act
在家庭法诉讼中，家事法院首先要：
1. 确定家庭的“资产池”中包括哪些“财产”；
2. 确定供分配的“资产池”的规模。
因此，正是在第一步中，法院要确定一项信托资产是否在家庭法所界定的“财产”范围内，即便该资产在法律上并非由婚姻关系的一方所有。
高等法院在Kennon诉Spry一案的裁决为判断信托资产在何种情况下属于“财产”范围提供了权威性标准。
In family law litigation, the initial steps for the Family Court is to:
1. determine what “property” is included in the family’s “asset pool”, and subsequently,
2. the size of the “asset pool” for distribution.
As such, it is during the first step where the court is asked to determine whether a trust asset, although not legally owned by a party to the relationship, would fall within the scope of “property” as defined in the Act.
The High Court’s decision in Kennon v. Spry is the authority for determining in which circumstances assets held in trust would qualify as “property”.
四、澳洲高等法院Kennon诉Spry一案（2008年）
Kennon v. Spry [2008] HCA 56
案件事实
The facts
1. 1968年，Spry博士（丈夫）创建了名为ICF Spry的信托（“信托”），他是该信托的资金提供方和受托人。
2. 1978年，Spry博士与Helen Spry（妻子）结婚。
3. 1979年，由信托使用丈夫婚前在信托中积攒的15.2万澳元现金购买了一处房产。
4. 1981年，信托条款将受益人列为丈夫、他的兄弟姐妹和上述人员的配偶及直系后代（其中包括Spry女士）。
5. 1983年，这对夫妇搬入由信托购买的房产中，并一直居住到1994年。
6. 1983年，信托条款以契约形式作出更改：将丈夫排除在受益人之外，并在丈夫去世时委任妻子为受托人。
这些约定可随时由丈夫撤销。
7. 1998年，这对夫妇的婚姻出现问题。
8. 1998年，丈夫进一步更改信托契约，并撤销了妻子作为继任受托人的任命，改为任命他们的长女。
9. 1998年的信托契约还规定：
a. 如果丈夫不再是受托人，未经其事先书面同意，不得在其生前花费、分配或使用信托基金的收入或信托资本，
b. 更改信托契约的权力只能由委托人在其有生之年行使或根据其遗嘱行使，
c. 丈夫和妻子不可撤销地被完全排除在所有基金资本、基金资本的利息、权利和任何可能的其他事项之外。
10.2001年他们分居后，丈夫将信托拆分为四个条款一致的信托，并分给其四位子女。
11.2002年，妻子向家事法院申请财产清算令。尤其是，她根据《家庭法》第106B部分，要求撤销：
a.1998年信托条款的变更；
b.信托契约创建的四个信托；
c.随后对这四个信托资产的处置。
12. 2005年，家事法院撤销了1998年的信托契约和2001年对信托的处置。
13. 2007年，丈夫对判决提出上诉，家事法院合议庭驳回其上诉。
14. 2008年，澳大利亚高等法院特许对2007年的判决准予上诉，结果为澳大利亚高等法院大多数决议驳回丈夫的上诉。
1. In 1968, Dr. Spry (the husband) created a trust named the ICF Spry Trust (the trust) of which he was the settlor and trustee.
2. In 1978, Dr. Spry married Helen Spry (the wife).
3. In 1979, the trust purchased a property for AUD $152,000 with cash accumulated before the marriage.
4. In 1981, the terms of the trust named the beneficiaries as the husband, his siblings and all of their spouses and issue (this would include the wife).
5. In 1983, the couple moved into the property bought by the trust and remained there until 1994.
6. In 1983, the terms of the trust were varied by deed to exclude the husband as a beneficiary and appointed the wife to be the trustee on his death.These appointments were revocable by the husband at any time.
7. In 1998 the couple were experiencing marriage problems.
8. In 1998, the husband further varied the trust deed and revoked the appointment of the wife as the successor trustee appointing their eldest daughters instead.
9. The 1998 trust deed also provided that:
a. If the husband ceased to be trustee no payment or distribution or application of the income or capital of the trust fund could be made during his lifetime without his prior written consent,
b. The power to vary the trust deed could only be exercised by the settler during his lifetime or by his Will,
c. The husband and the wife were irrevocably excluded absolutely from all and any interest, rights and possibilities in the capital of the fund.
10. After their separation in 2001, the husband divided the Trust into 4 Trusts of identical terms one for each of their four children.
11. In 2002, the wife applied to the Family Court for property settlement orders. In particular, she sought orders under section 106B of the Act seeking to set aside:
a. the 1998 trust variation,
b. the trust deed creating the four trusts and
c. the subsequent disposition of assets to these four trusts.
12. In 2005 the Family court set aside the 1998 trust deed and the 2001 dispositions.
13. The husband appealed the decision with the full court of the Family Court dismissing his appeal in 2007.
14. In 2008, the High Court of Australia granted special leave to appeal the 2007 decision, with the majority decision dismissing the appeal.
五、首席法官French的判决
Judgment of French CJ
首席大法官French恰当地将《家庭法》第79部分中的“财产”一词裁定为应根据该法的宗旨而广义地理解，从而确认了家事法院在决定和处理资产关系时的“长臂管辖”权力。
“长臂管辖”允许法庭作出针对第三方的裁决，另外，106B部分赋予法院权力，以“撤销或者限制一方当事人、代表当事人、根据当事人指示或以该当事人利益为目的而制定的协议或处置的资产，该协议的制定或资产的处置是为推翻法庭现有的或预期的命令而作出的提议或拟作出的提议，或无论其意图如何，都有可能推翻法庭的命令”。
Chief Justice French rightly ruled that the word “property” as contained in section 79 of the Family Law Act is to be read widely and conformably with the purposes of the Act, confirming that the Family Court has a very “long arm” when determining and dealing with the assets of the relationship.
This “long arm” allows for orders to be made against third parties, furthermore, section 106B provides the court with power to “set aside or restrain the making of an instrument or disposition by or on behalf of, or by direction or in the interest of, a party, which is made or proposed to be made to defeat an existing or anticipated order in those proceedings or which, irrespective of intention, is likely to defeat any such order.”
因此，利用能够控制受益人的全权信托不足以将资产置于家事法院的管辖之外，并且法庭可以对第三方（如受托人）作出命令，从而撤销为对抗或寻求对抗家庭法庭的命令而作出的处分或契约变更。
Accordingly, the use of a beneficiary controlled discretionary trust is not sufficient to remove assets from the reach of the Family Court, and that orders can be made against third parties, such as trustees, to set aside any dispositions or variations to deeds which are made to defeat, or seek to defeat, an order of the family court.
Kennon案的判决以及之后的判决确立了以下原则：
1. 婚前建立全权信托并不能保障信托资产的安全，无论以后多么全面化地进行尝试，都不能将信托资产置于家事法院的管辖范围之外。
2. 即使以信托模式隔离信托资产，不允许丈夫或妻子同时拥有控制权和受益权，法庭仍将考虑当事方是否能对信托行使实际控制权以及对信托日常管理的影响程度。
3. 如果丈夫或妻子是信托的受益人，并从信托中获得收入或分配，则该收入可被认定为一方的财务资源[1]（如优惠租金和/或现金分配）。
4. 如果将信托宣告为财务资源，则拥有财务资源的当事方可能会获得家族资产池中的一小部分，但信托中的资产不会被分配。
5. 受托人通常是一家公司，受益人是该公司的董事和股东。在这种模式中，家事法院将不难认定信托财产即为婚姻关系中的“财产”。
因此，在有子女且有分居或离婚风险的父母设立生前信托或遗嘱信托的情况下，法律文件的起草人必须确保父母的信托资产不会受到子女家庭破裂的影响，特别是当子女在家族企业任职时。
The decision in Kennon along with subsequent decisions have established the following principals:
1. The establishment of a discretionary trust prior to marriage does not safeguard the assets of the trust along with any later attempts to place the trust assets out of the reach of the court, no matter how comprehensively done.
2. Even if the assets held in trust are quarantined in a trust structure which does not allow for the husband or wife to hold both control and the ability to benefit, the court will consider whether a party is able to exert actual control and the extent of influence exercised over the day to day management of the trust.
3. If either the husband or wife is a beneficiary to the trust and receives income or distribution from the trust, this income could be determined as a financial resource of the party[2] (such as discounted rent and/or cash distributions).
4. If a trust is declared as a financial resource, the party with the financial resource may receive a smaller portion of the family asset pool but the asset held in trust will not be included for distribution.
5. It is common for the trustee to be a company with a beneficiary being a director and shareholder of the company. In such structures, the family court will not have difficulty in finding that the trust property is “property” to the relationship.
Accordingly, in the case of inter vivos or testamentary trusts established by parents with children at risk of separation or divorce, the drafter must ensure that the parents’ trust assets are not going to be affected by the family breakdown of a child, especially if that child works in the family business.
六、实际考虑因素
Practical Considerations
实际上，起草法律文件时应当首先询问：
• 谁是信托的受托人或谁是公司受托人的董事/股东？
• 谁是受益者？
• 信托契约变更的时间以及变更的目的是什么？
• 谁是信托的信托委任者（appointor）以及信托委任者的权力有哪些？
• 婚姻一方是否能“有效控制”受托人或信托委任者？
• 信托资产是如何产生的，以及其与婚姻关系或事实婚姻关系一方的关系如何？
• 受托人曾向受益人进行的分配的类型和范围是什么？
• 一方是否有能力将大部分信托资产分配给自己？
In practical terms, legal drafters should start by asking:
• Who is the trustee of the trust or the director/shareholder of a corporate trustee?
• Who are the beneficiaries?
• The timing of any variations to the trust deed and for what purpose where they made?
• Who is the appointor of the Trust and his/her powers?
• Whether a party to the marriage has “effective control” over the trustee or appointor?
• How the assets of the trust were generated and the nexus with a party to the marriage or de facto relationship?
• The type and extent of the historical distributions made by the trustee to the beneficiaries?
• Whether a party has the ability to distribute a majority portion of the trust assets to him or herself?
鉴于上述情况，律师在为客户设计信托模式时应考虑以下因素：
1. 忽略信托的法律结构，询问信托资产与夫妻双方是否存在联系。
2. 明确信托的意图，制作表明上述意图的备忘录或家庭章程，其中清楚列明信托的意定受益人及信托的目的。
3. 将信托控制人和潜在受益人之间划清界限。专业受托人是一种选择，其可以客观地执行备忘录中的指示。
4. 如果可能的话，控制信托的人从一开始就应该被排除在受益人之外，而不是在婚姻开始破裂时才作出变更。
5. 委任两名或更多的信托委任者，其中至少一名委任者是真正独立于任何有风险的个人。委托人可以分别、共同或独立行事。
6. 委任两名或更多的受托人，其中至少一名受托人是真正独立于任何有风险的个人的。若公司被选作受托人时，则要包括真正独立的股东及董事。
7. 考虑在受托人或委托人关系破裂时设立自动解除其职务的机制。这应该在设立信托时进行，而不是通过变更完成。
如果最终的信托模式与客户的目标不符，那么使用有约束力的财务协议或许对于隔绝财产纠纷来说是一项更好的选择，这种信托模式则可被用来保护资产免遭破产的影响，并且也能提高纳税的灵活度。
Given the above, legal drafters should take into consideration the following when establishing a trust structure for the client:
1. Disregard the legal structure of the trust and ask if there is going to be a nexus between the trust assets and the parties to the marriage.
2. Make the intention of the trust clear, with a supporting memorandum of wishes or a family constitution which clearly sets out the intended beneficiaries and purpose of the trust.
3. Draw a clear line between those who control the trust and the potential beneficiaries. A professional trustee is an option and provides objectivity in acting on the instructions contained in the memorandum.
4. If possible, those who control the trust should be excluded as beneficiaries from the outset, rather than making changes when the marriage begins to breakdown.
5. To appoint two or more appointors to the trust with at least one being truly independent from any at-risk individual. The appointors can act severally, jointly or independently.
6. To appoint two or more trustees with at least one being truly independent from any at-risk individual and to include truly independent shareholders and directors if a corporate trustee is chosen.
7. Consider built-in mechanisms for the automatic removal of an individual trustee or appointor if they suffer a relationship breakdown. This should be done at the establishment of a trust and not through variation.
If the resultant trust structure does not accord with the goals of the client, then perhaps a binding financial agreement is a better option to insulate against any property settlement claims, with the trust structure utilised to provide asset protection against bankruptcy and for tax flexibility.
我们的团队
Our Team
无论您想在澳大利亚设立子公司还是收购澳大利亚公司股权或资产，君益诚涉澳法律团队将为中国投资者提供最专业且全面的一站式服务。
通过与从事双边贸易和跨境投资的中澳跨国公司长期合作，我们拥有丰富的法律服务经验。
Whether you are seeking to establish a local Australian subsidiary or acquiring an interest in an Australian company or asset, JYC Law Group’s Australia Legal Team provides an integrated end to end solution to Chinese investors.
Our experience comes from a history of working with Chinese and Australian multinationals engaged in bilateral trade and cross border investments.
[1] 见Kelly和Kelly No.2一案，家事法院认为财务资源是“一方事实上拥有足够控制权的存货或准备金，在必要时可以用来解决一些财务上的需求或不足”。
See Kelly and Kelly No. 2 [1981] (FCA) where the Family court held that a financial resource is a “stock or reserve over which a party has sufficient control as a matter of fact to draw upon when necessary towards supplying some financial want or deficiency.”
[2] 同上。
Id.
