Tax indemnity: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
The best kind of [[indemnity]]. One of the few occasions where {{tag|contract}}ual indemnity is generally justified and reasonable — if an unexpected tax is imposed on one party in respect of its activity in providing a service (holding its assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is hard to predict or cost into one’s service, it is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability.
{{a|negotiation|}}The best kind of [[indemnity]]. One of the few occasions where {{tag|contract}}ual indemnity is generally justified and reasonable — if an unexpected tax is imposed on one party in respect of its activity in providing a service (holding its assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is hard to predict or cost into one’s service, it is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Indemnity]]
*[[Indemnity]]

Revision as of 10:42, 5 June 2019

Negotiation Anatomy™

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

The best kind of indemnity. One of the few occasions where contractual indemnity is generally justified and reasonable — if an unexpected tax is imposed on one party in respect of its activity in providing a service (holding its assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is hard to predict or cost into one’s service, it is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability.

See also