Template:Isda Combined Tax Event comp: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This covers {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} and {{{{{1}}}|Change in Tax Law}}, and also the hilarious concept of {{{{{1}}}|Indemnifiable Tax}}es''.
''This is a composite page covering {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}}, {{{{{1}}}|Change in Tax Law}} and the hilarious concept of {{{{{1}}}|Indemnifiable Tax}}es''.
 
{{isdacomparisons|90850|90851|90852}}
====Tax Event====
{{Isda Tax Event comp|{{{1}}}}}
{{Isda Tax Event comp|{{{1}}}}}
 
====Change in Tax Law====
{{Isda Change in Tax Law comp|{{{1}}}}}
{{Isda Change in Tax Law comp|{{{1}}}}}
====“Indemnifiable Tax”====
{{Isda Indemnifiable Tax comp|{{{1}}}}}

Latest revision as of 13:26, 16 September 2024

This is a composite page covering {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}}, {{{{{1}}}|Change in Tax Law}} and the hilarious concept of {{{{{1}}}|Indemnifiable Tax}}es.

Redlines


Discussion

Tax Event

The 1992 ISDA represented a significant change from the 1987 ISDA which was a bit half-hearted about gross-ups.

Other than the renumbering, no real changes in the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} from the 1992 ISDA to the 2002 ISDA though, unhelpfully, the sub-paragraph references in the 1992 ISDA are (1) and (2) and in the 2002 ISDA are (A) and (B). Otherwise, pretty much the same.

Change in Tax Law

The 1987 ISDA and the 1992 ISDA were the same, and the best ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ could do to upgrade the 2002 ISDA was the rather fussy “on or after” tweak.

“Indemnifiable Tax”

The joyous expression first found voice in the 1987 ISDA and somewhat undercuts JC’spet theory that the absurd prolixity of modern commercial drafting is the fault of word processing. There wasn’t any word processing in 1986. It was all typewriters, carbon paper and Tipp-Ex.

Anyhow, you would like to think as the generations rolled on ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ could do something to improve a passage with a quintuple negative, wouldn’t you? Even, if, bloody-mindedly, to add a sixth negative, just to underline how scanty is the damn they give about the neurotic whinings of those, like JC, who are always simpering on about more economical expressions. In your face, prose stylists, such a stance might say. Actually, since I’m here, have a fricking seventh negative, punk, and brand it on your forehead so all who look upon you will know who it was who schooled you.

We can but dream, possums. We can only imagine what might have been. but no; they left the ghastly tract inviolate. In this place, at least the innocent spirit of 1987’s Children of the Forest — for this is their text.