View source for Income Payment Date - 2000 GMSLA Provision

{{gmsla2000anat|Income Payment Date}}
A clumsy [[Definitions|definition]] in that it muddies ''entitlement'' to be paid income from ''payment date'' of {{gmsla2000prov|Income}}, and when it comes to [[manufacturing]] dividends and income, it is the date of ''entitlement'' to payment that is important. Income Payment Date gets this right, after a fashion, for registered Securities, but even then there is a hanging and rather ambiguous “[[or]]”. 

===“[[Or]]” as an [[exclusive disjunction]]===
To make sense of it, this one needs this or to be an ''ex''clusive disjunction, whereas in the ordinary course, enthusiastic readers will know, the [[JC]]’s house view is that [[or]] is an ''in''clusive disjunction. Clearly, for [[Bearer security|bearer paper]] the only material time is the point where there noteholder rocks up with its note or [[coupon]] and presents it for payment. For a registered security, the right to payment accrues on an {{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}, and it doesn't matter who holds the paper (or is registered as owner) on the payment date; the person who was registered on the record date gets the payment.

Nonetheless, the drafting makes rather a bosh of a simple question which — as I dare say the [[JC]]'s own {{nutshell}} drafting demonstrates — can be articulated quite easily.

:{{Nutshell GMSLA 2000 Income Payment Date}}<br>

For this reason, the definition was rather improved by its successor in the [[2010 GMSLA]], “{{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}”

And no, this is not a good example of where one should use “[[and/or]]”. There ''are'' no good examples of that.

{{sa}}
*[[Exclusive disjunction]]
*[[Inclusive disjunction]]