Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 6(b)(ii): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(ii)}}: {{isdaprov|Transfer to Avoid Termination Event}} === | === Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(ii)}}: {{isdaprov|Transfer to Avoid Termination Event}} === | ||
Things start to go a bit wobbly. You sense that {{icds}} has been on the sauce, or marching powder or something, and became attached to the idea of trying to codify the unknowable future. It gets worse before it gets better but here the permutations are about the parties ''tax'' status: either the Tax ''law'' has changed for one or other party — a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} — or a party has executed some fancy cross-border merger which has somehow changed its tax residence, status, or eligibility of favourable tax treatment: this is a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}. Here, in essence, you have a little window to sort yourself out, if you hadn’t done that ''before'' the merger (isn’t that what Tax advisors are for, by the way?). | Things start to go a bit wobbly. You sense that {{icds}} has been on the sauce, or marching powder or something, and became attached to the idea of trying to codify the unknowable future. It gets worse before it gets better but here the permutations are about the parties ''tax'' status: either the Tax ''law'' has changed for one or other party — a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} — or a party has executed some fancy cross-border merger which has somehow changed its tax residence, status, or eligibility of favourable tax treatment: this is a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}. Here, in essence, you have a little window to sort yourself out, if you hadn’t done that ''before'' the merger (isn’t that what Tax advisors are for, by the way?). | ||
Tax Events upon Merger also create the magnificent games of three-dimensional chess drafting, because there is an {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, and a {{isdaprov|Burdened Party}}, and they are not ~ ''necessarily'' ~ the same, and that is even before you worry about what has happened if there is a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} (could be, right? There is a merger... so why not?) [[and/or]] a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} going on at the same time. | |||
Revision as of 18:20, 13 September 2022
Section 6(b)(ii): Transfer to Avoid Termination Event
Things start to go a bit wobbly. You sense that ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ has been on the sauce, or marching powder or something, and became attached to the idea of trying to codify the unknowable future. It gets worse before it gets better but here the permutations are about the parties tax status: either the Tax law has changed for one or other party — a Tax Event — or a party has executed some fancy cross-border merger which has somehow changed its tax residence, status, or eligibility of favourable tax treatment: this is a Tax Event Upon Merger. Here, in essence, you have a little window to sort yourself out, if you hadn’t done that before the merger (isn’t that what Tax advisors are for, by the way?).
Tax Events upon Merger also create the magnificent games of three-dimensional chess drafting, because there is an Affected Party, and a Burdened Party, and they are not ~ necessarily ~ the same, and that is even before you worry about what has happened if there is a Credit Event Upon Merger (could be, right? There is a merger... so why not?) and/or a Force Majeure going on at the same time.