Furnish Specified Information - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat2|isda|4(a)|2002|4(a)|1992}} | {{fullanat2|isda|4(a)|2002|4(a)|1992}} | ||
In the{{t|ISDA}} {{isdaprov|schedule}} there's a part — {{isdaprov|Part 3}} as a matter of fact — where you set out a table of {{isdaprov|Specified Information}}: documents that the parties agree to deliver to each other at certain times. The table in part 3 itemises what must be delivered, by whom, by when, and whether the {{isdaprov|Specified Information}} in | In the{{t|ISDA}} {{isdaprov|schedule}} there's a part — {{isdaprov|Part 3}} as a matter of fact — where you set out a table of {{isdaprov|Specified Information}}: documents that the parties agree to deliver to each other at certain times. The table in part 3 itemises what must be delivered, by whom, by when, and whether the {{isdaprov|Specified Information}} in question is covered by the Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} representation as to accuracy and completeness. It will also totally bugger up the formatting in your document. It is a well-known fact that no [[ISDA negotiator]] on the face of the earth knows how to format a table in [[Microsoft Word]]. | ||
Then again, nor does anyone else. | Then again, nor does anyone else. | ||
In any case, the significance of those documents is rendered by this provision: it is by dint of this that the parties agree to exchange them. A failure, therefore, to produce | In any case, the significance of those documents is rendered by this provision: it is by dint of this that the parties agree to exchange them. A failure, therefore, to produce documents set out in {{isdaprov|4(a)(i)(ii)}} would amount to an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} for {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}}. Note that to get to this conclusion you need to follow a tortured chain of nested [[double negative|double negatives]] between clauses {{isdaprov|4(a)}} and {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}}. | ||
{{Withholding under ISDA}} | {{Withholding under ISDA}} |
Revision as of 09:31, 11 September 2017
ISDA Anatomy™
(view template)
|
In theISDA schedule there's a part — Part 3 as a matter of fact — where you set out a table of Specified Information: documents that the parties agree to deliver to each other at certain times. The table in part 3 itemises what must be delivered, by whom, by when, and whether the Specified Information in question is covered by the Section 3(d) representation as to accuracy and completeness. It will also totally bugger up the formatting in your document. It is a well-known fact that no ISDA negotiator on the face of the earth knows how to format a table in Microsoft Word.
Then again, nor does anyone else.
In any case, the significance of those documents is rendered by this provision: it is by dint of this that the parties agree to exchange them. A failure, therefore, to produce documents set out in 4(a)(i)(ii) would amount to an Event of Default for Breach of Agreement under Section 5(a)(ii). Note that to get to this conclusion you need to follow a tortured chain of nested double negatives between clauses 4(a) and 5(a)(ii).
Withholding under the ISDA
TL;DR: The basic rationale is this:
- if the tax relates to the underlying instrument, rather than the {{{{{1}}}|Payer}}’s residence or tax status, the {{{{{1}}}|Payer}} does not have to gross up.
- if the tax relates to the {{{{{1}}}|Payer}}’s residence or tax status, then the Payer does have to gross up unless the {{{{{1}}}|Payee}} should have provided information to the {{{{{1}}}|Payer}} which would have entitled the {{{{{1}}}|Payer}} to avoid the tax.
- if you’ve agreed the {{{{{1}}}|FATCA Amendment}}, the {{{{{1}}}|Payer}} doesn’t have to gross up any {{{{{1}}}|FATCA Withholding Tax}}es.
The combination of the {{{{{1}}}|Payer Tax Representations}} and the {{{{{1}}}|Gross-Up}} clause of the ISDA Master Agreement has the following effect:
- Section {{{{{1}}}|3(e)}}: I promise you that I do not have to withhold on my payments to you (as long as all your {{{{{1}}}|Payee Tax Representations}} are correct and you have, under Section {{{{{1}}}|4(a)}}, given me everything I need to pay free of withholding);
- Section {{{{{1}}}|2(d)}}: I will not withhold on any payments to you. Unless I am required to by law. Which I kind of told you I wasn’t... If I have to withhold, I'll pay the tax the authorities and give you the receipt. If I only had to withhold because of my connection to the taxing jurisdiction (that is, if the withholding is an {{{{{1}}}|Indemnifiable Tax}}), I’ll gross you up. (You should look at the drafting of {{{{{1}}}|Indemnifiable Tax}}, by the way. It's quite a marvel). ...
- {{{{{1}}}|Gross-Up}}: Unless the tax could have been avoided if the {{{{{1}}}|Payee}} had taken made all its {{{{{1}}}|3(f)}} representations, delivered all its {{{{{1}}}|4(a)}} material, or had its {{{{{1}}}|3(f)}} representations been, like, true).
- {{{{{1}}}|Stamp Tax}} is a whole other thing.
- As is FATCA, which (as long as you’ve made your {{{{{1}}}|FATCA Amendment}} or signed up to a {{{{{1}}}|FATCA Protocol}}, provides that {{{{{1}}}|FATCA Withholding Tax}}es are excluded from the Section {{{{{1}}}|3(e)}} {{{{{1}}}|Payer Tax Representations}}, and also from the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Indemnifiable Tax}}. Meaning one doesn't have to rep, or gross up, FATCA payments.