|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A “{{isdaprov|Burdened Party}}” is different from an “{{isdaprov|Affected Party}}” because the tax obligation — well, ''burden'' — resulting from the merger of one counterparty may fall on the ''other'' one. If I were Russian and you Cypriot, and I was able to pay without withholding thanks to the Russia-Cyprus double tax treaty, and then ''you'' went and merged into a Scottish company, meaning you became Scottish, and ceased to be Cypriot for tax purposes, then suddenly I can’t take advantage of that marvellous double tax treaty any more. In that case I am the “{{isdaprov|Burdened Party}}” — the one suffering the enhanced tax burden — but you are the “{{isdaprov|Affected Party}}” — since it was your merger which triggered the unhappy tax transformation.
| | This is you can imagine, a red letter day for {{icds}} who quite outdid itself in the complicated permutations for how to terminate an {{isdama}} should there be a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}. Things kick off in Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(ii)}} and it really just gets better from there on in.<ref>It doesn’t.</ref> |
| | |
| In the case where my merger also caused me to suffer the tax burden, I would be both the Burdened Party ''and'' the Affected Party.
| |
| | |
| This is you can imagine, a red letter day for {{icds}} w2ho quite outdid itself in the complicated permutations for how to terminate an {{isdama}} should there be a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}. Things kick off in Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(ii)}} and it really just gets better from there on in.<ref>It doesn’t.</ref> | |