Liability (for withholding) - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|2(d)(ii)}} | {{isdaanat|2(d)(ii)}} | ||
It is hard to peer into the fevered mind of an [[ISDA ninja]] who came up with this provision to work out just what it is meant to do, and why | It is hard to peer into the fevered mind of an [[ISDA ninja]] who came up with this provision to work out just what it is meant to do, and why. | ||
This seems a stretch — the usually fulsome prose of the {{isdama}} neglects in this case to say anything about Payee Tax Representations, right or wrong, much less the | The best guess we’ve seen comes from our old friend, the tiresome [[FT book about derivatives]], whose learned author contends that it addresses the time where a {{isdaprov|Payer}} makes a payment gross, relying in [[good faith]] on a {{isdaprov|Payee Tax Representation}} that the {{isdaprov|Payee}} is entitled to receive gross, only to then find that the {{isdaprov|Tax}}ing authority in question requires the {{isdaprov|Payer}} to make that payment net, and account to it for the {{isdaprov|Tax}}, after all. In this case the {{isdaprov|Payer}} can require the {{isdaprov|Payee}} to [[indemnify]] it for the payment, interest and penalties. | ||
This seems a stretch — the usually fulsome<ref>Did I say fulsome? Tiresome.</ref> prose of the {{isdama}} neglects in this case to say anything about {{isdaprov|Payee Tax Representations}}, right or wrong, much less the {{isdaprov|Payer}}’s legitimate reliance on them. It seems to say if the [[Payer]], whether through blameless inadvertence or stupidity, neglects to account for a tax it was obliged to account for, the poor old Payee has to cover. | |||
But on the other hand, it is hard to think of a better explanation. So, go [[FT book about derivatives|Paul C. Harding]]!!! |
Revision as of 14:15, 19 September 2019
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
view template
|
It is hard to peer into the fevered mind of an ISDA ninja who came up with this provision to work out just what it is meant to do, and why.
The best guess we’ve seen comes from our old friend, the tiresome FT book about derivatives, whose learned author contends that it addresses the time where a Payer makes a payment gross, relying in good faith on a Payee Tax Representation that the Payee is entitled to receive gross, only to then find that the Taxing authority in question requires the Payer to make that payment net, and account to it for the Tax, after all. In this case the Payer can require the Payee to indemnify it for the payment, interest and penalties.
This seems a stretch — the usually fulsome[1] prose of the ISDA Master Agreement neglects in this case to say anything about Payee Tax Representations, right or wrong, much less the Payer’s legitimate reliance on them. It seems to say if the Payer, whether through blameless inadvertence or stupidity, neglects to account for a tax it was obliged to account for, the poor old Payee has to cover.
But on the other hand, it is hard to think of a better explanation. So, go Paul C. Harding!!!
- ↑ Did I say fulsome? Tiresome.