信託與繼承法之交錯：以日本法為借鏡

The Conflicts Between Trusts and Succession Law in Taiwan: A Lesson from Japanese Trust Law

生前信託或遺囑信託，均可能具有遺產分配功能，能否規避繼承法之規範，例如特留分、遺囑禁止分割之最長期限、同時存在原則等限制，值得檢討。本文舉出實務案例，彙整了信託可能與繼承法產生之扞格點後，參考日本法，提出相關建議。日本於2006年修正信託法（2007年9月30日施行）時，導入了類似美國「可撤銷信託」之制度，稱為「遺囑代用信託」，肯定生前信託亦得發揮處分遺產之功能。此外，明文承認了「受益人連續型信託」，惟有30年的期間限制。本文認為，臺灣或可承認「遺囑代用信託」，但不論何種信託，只要受益權（或信託利益之給付）發生於委託人死後，即應受特留分之規範。在計算特留分受侵害額、行使扣減權時，應採「信託財產說」，使特留分扣減人因扣減而取得「現在且絕對」之權利，脫離信託。存續期間方面，法院對長達60年的遺囑信託未曾表達疑慮|在「同時存在原則」方面，相較於遺贈，信託更能避免理論上的困難。從而，信託成為拘束力較強且時間持久的遺產規劃的工具，能更大程度實現委託人之遺願。本文贊成此種發展方向，惟立法論上仍應考慮設置存續期間之規定，並嚴謹地遵循繼承法中的特留分制度。

Both living trusts and testamentary trusts are good devices for estate planning. In civil law countries including Taiwan, there are some limits to testamentary freedom in succession law such as reserved portion, the requirement that the heir or beneficiary must exist at the moment of disposition, and the rule that the testator shall not prohibit the estate from beyond a certain period (10 years in Taiwan). As trusts are literally not wills but have the same functions as wills, whether it should follow the rules in succession law became a problem. This study firstly raised a leading case regarding testamentary trusts in Taiwan as an example in order to elaborate on this issue. Secondly, this article took research on Japanese law to receive some advice. Japan promulgated Trust Act in 1921, which was comparatively early as a civil law jurisdiction, and experienced a significant revision in 2006. In this amendment, ''will-substitute trust'' was introduced as a new type trust, which was originated from revocable living trusts in the United States, and expected to help transfer estates smoothly and efficiently. Furthermore, it became possible for a settlor to designate not only primary beneficiaries but also contingent beneficiaries with the limit that after 30 years of trust creation, only once interest conveyance (contingency) is allowable and the trust only last to the death of that contingent beneficiaries. This research considers that Taiwan can adopt similar rules as Japan's choices. Frist, whether living trusts or testamentary trusts, as long as the trust interest is vested after the death of the settlor, it must obey the rules of reserved portion. While claiming the reserved portion by deducting trusts, the object should be trust property, not beneficiary rights. After the deduction, what the statutory heir recovered should be the ownership (i.e., fee simple of absolute) of the property, and the heir should not retain as a trust beneficiary ever after. On the other hand, the court in Taiwan did not show specific concern about the length of the trust in the above-mentioned case. In terms of the issue that creating future interests for a person who does not yet exist may not acceptable in succession law, after carefully reviewed, it is found that a trust can solve most of these theoretical problems compared to devise. In conclusion, trusts have become a legal device which can control estates more steadily and longer than other testamentary dispositions in Taiwan. This article sees this development positively but considers that to set up some rule against perpetuities and keep the minimum limits, that is, reserved portion, to free disposition is still necessary.