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: | ||
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 its assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is hard to predict or cost into one’s service, it is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability. | {{a|negotiation|}}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 its assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is hard to predict or cost into one’s service, it is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Indemnity]] | *[[Indemnity]] | ||
Revision as of 10:42, 5 June 2019
|
Negotiation 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 its assets in custody for example) for the other. It ticks all the boxes of a good indemnity: It is precise, specific and easy to articulate; it is hard to predict or cost into one’s service, it is deterministic in amount, and doesn’t open up the indemnifying person to indeterminate liability.