Tax indemnity: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|spb|}}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 assets in [[custody]] for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It relates to liabilities one party incurs carrying out activity for which the other party (exclusively) benefits; it is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is a genuine [[contingent liability|contingency]] in that it is hard to anticipate and therefore cost into one’s service; if it does come about, a tax amount is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the [[Indemnifying party|indemnifying person]] to [[indeterminate liability]]. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Indemnity]] | *[[Indemnity]] | ||
*[[Contingent liability]] | *[[Contingent liability]] |
Revision as of 09:47, 12 January 2022
Synthetic Prime Brokerage Anatomy™
|
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 assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It relates to liabilities one party incurs carrying out activity for which the other party (exclusively) benefits; it is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is a genuine contingency in that it is hard to anticipate and therefore cost into one’s service; if it does come about, a tax amount is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability.