读书随记｜慈善事业的终止
文/赵廉慧
1.
在美国，私人基金会可能会被非自愿终止。非自愿终止只会出现在基金会存在“重复的恶意行为（willful repeated acts）”或“恶意和公然的作为或不作为”（willful and flagrant act or failure to act）行为的情形。[1]
此时，该基金会可能会面临“终止税（termination tax）”，课税额与（1）该基金会及其实质捐赠者（substantial contributors）历史上享有的累计税收豁免利益（追溯至该组织成立）加上利息；（2）该基金会的净资产价值这二者中的低者等值。
如果私人基金会将其净资产全部分配给一个或多个公共慈善机构，IRS有权削减终止税。
私人基金会也可以通过将其资产分配给一个或多个公共慈善组织的方式或者自己作为一个公共机构运作的方式来自愿终止。不过，该基金会在做出这种改变的时候应该通知IRS。
2.
2.1 我国的慈善组织终止。
我国《慈善法》第十七条和第十八条对慈善组织的终止做出了规定。其中，第十七条规定了慈善组织的五项终止事由：（一）出现章程规定的终止情形的；（二）因分立、合并需要终止的；（三）连续二年未从事慈善活动的；（四）依法被撤销登记或者吊销登记证书的；（五）法律、行政法规规定应当终止的其他情形。前两者类似自愿的解散，随后两项类似非自愿的解散。而第十八条第二款明确规定了慈善组织终止的程序：清算、剩余财产适用近似原则、注销登记并公告：“慈善组织清算后的剩余财产，应当按照慈善组织章程的规定转给宗旨相同或者相近的慈善组织；章程未规定的，由民政部门主持转给宗旨相同或者相近的慈善组织，并向社会公告。”
2.2 我国的慈善信托终止。
慈善法没有相关规定，《信托法》也没有就公益信托的终止事由做出特别规定，只能部分适用信托法第五十三条关于信托终止的一般规定。第五十三条的规定中也可以区分出自愿的和非自愿的终止事由。
《信托法》第七十条到第七十二条规定了公益信托的终止程序。值得探讨的是第七十二条：“公益信托终止，没有信托财产权利归属人或者信托财产权利归属人是不特定的社会公众的，经公益事业管理机构批准，受托人应当将信托财产用于与原公益目的相近似的目的，或者将信托财产转移给具有近似目的的公益组织或者其他公益信托。”
3.
稍加对比，可以看出，我国法律要求慈善财产一旦进入慈善领域就无法撤回，慈善财产成为一种既非私人财产、亦非公有财产（包括政府财产）的公共财产（社会财产）。
信托法第72条似乎允许当事人约定慈善公益信托终止时的归属权利人，但是学理上讲，这个归属权利人应当是公益慈善组织、其他公益慈善信托或者至少是能接受公益捐赠的组织。否则，允许将剩余信托财产归属于特定的私人或者组织，将会带来极大的恶果。
美国似乎是结合终止税和近似原则共同处理类似问题。特别是在自愿终止的场合，私人基金会似乎可以选择将剩余财产按近似原则做出处理，也可以选择缴纳终止税。美国的私人基金会似乎存在有限的选择权。
[1] An organization’s private foundation status shall be involuntarily terminated if the IRS notifies the organization that because of willful, flagrant or repeated acts (or failures to act) or a willful and flagrant act (or failure to act), giving rise to liability for private foundation excise taxes, the organization is liable for the termination tax.
Willful repeated acts (or failures to act) are at least two acts or failures to act which are voluntarily, consciously and intentionally committed.A willful and flagrant act (or failure to act) is an act which is voluntarily, consciously and knowingly committed in violation of the excise tax provisions, and which appears to a reasonable person to be a gross violation of these provisions.
The act or failure to act may be attributed to the private foundation even though the tax is imposed on the foundation’s managers rather than on the foundation itself. Furthermore, the failure to correct the act or acts (or failure or failures to act) that gave rise to excise tax liability may itself be considered a willful and flagrant act or failure to act.
No motive to avoid legal restrictions or incur tax is necessary to make the act or failure to act willful. However, a foundation’s act or failure to act is not willful if the foundation or its manager, if applicable, does not know that the act or failure to act is an act of self-dealing, a taxable expenditure, or otherwise gives rise to liability for excise taxes.
Although the section 507(c) tax resulting from an involuntary termination may be abated, this is not true for any excise tax liability attributable to the acts or failures to act that caused the involuntary termination.