Canada: Canada Tax Law: What To Watch For In 2012

This Perspective takes a look back at tax developments in Canada in 2011 and offers a look forward to possible Canadian tax developments in 2012.

CANADIAN TAX REVIEW AND OUTLOOK

Corporate taxpayers in Canada continue to operate in an environment of declining tax rates, with the federal income tax rate falling from 16.5% in 2011 to 15% in 2012 and some provincial income tax rates expected to decrease in 2012 and beyond. For example, the Ontario corporate tax rate was reduced to 11.5% effective July 1, 2011 and is scheduled to decline to 11% on July 1, 2012 and to 10% on July 1, 2013 (for a combined Canada/Ontario rate of 25%). However, recently there has been speculation that Ontario may not follow through with the balance of its planned rate cuts because its large annual deficits could put Ontario's credit rating at risk.

Corporate tax rates generally compare very favourably with those of the United States, which continues to struggle with calls for a reduction of its consistently higher corporate tax rates.

Short review of Canadian tax developments in 2011

A number of significant Canadian tax developments occurred in 2011, including: the entering into force of 12 tax information exchange agreements; release of draft legislation relating to the taxation of Canadian foreign affiliates; release of draft legislation targeting certain stapled securities and overriding two recent cases; enactment of legislation to end tax deferrals by corporate partnerships; and a decision by the Supreme Court on the application of the general anti-avoidance rule.

Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs)

Canada continued to expand its TIEA network in 2011, with 12 TIEAs coming into force and two additional TIEAs signed although not yet in force. In 2007, the Department of Finance Canada (the "Finance Department") announced that it will actively seek TIEAs with tax haven countries in order to improve domestic tax enforcement. To encourage tax havens to enter into TIEAs with Canada, dividends received by a Canadian corporation out of active business income of a foreign affiliate resident in a jurisdiction with which Canada has a TIEA have been made exempt from Canadian tax. As a stick to go along with this carrot, active business income of a controlled foreign affiliate is taxed in Canada on an accrual basis (in the same manner as foreign passive income) where the controlled foreign affiliate is resident in a jurisdiction that does not enter into a TIEA with Canada within 60 months after Canada either begins or seeks to enter into negotiations for a TIEA with that country.

With 12 TIEAs now in force (including with the Cayman Islands and Bermuda), the range of attractive jurisdictions within which to establish foreign affiliates of Canadian corporations has grown significantly. Moreover, with four signed TIEAs not yet in force and ongoing TIEA negotiations with 13 other countries, it is expected that this range will continue to expand.

Foreign Affiliate Rules

In 2004, the Finance Department released significant proposed amendments to the rules relevant to the taxation of foreign affiliates, which generally were to have retroactive effect to February 2004. Those amendments were never enacted and since that time the Finance Department has made statements (including in the form of comfort letters) suggesting that further revisions to the 2004 proposed amendments would be made before enactment. This created significant uncertainty as, in many cases, taxpayers undertaking transactions involving their foreign affiliates had to take into account the existing foreign affiliate rules, the 2004 proposed amendments and the additional amendments suggested by the Finance Department at conferences and in comfort letters.

Revised foreign affiliate proposals were finally released by the Finance Department on August 19, 2011. These proposals generally apply from August 19, 2011 or, on an elective basis, from February 27, 2004. To a large extent the 2004 proposals have been abandoned and while the 2011 package includes a number of welcome changes, it also contains some unexpected and highly restrictive proposals. Various groups have made submissions to the Minister of Finance and the hope is that the more onerous rules will be revised to more properly align with their purpose. However, comments made by the Finance Department at the Canadian Tax Foundation annual conference at the end of November 2011 were not encouraging.

A summary of the proposals is provided at http://www.dwpv.com/en/Resources/Publications/2011/Draft-Foreign-Affiliate-Rules-Include-Significant-Tax-Policy-Changes.

Stapled Securities

On October 31, 2006, the Finance Department announced specified investment flow-through legislation (the "SIFT Legislation") targeting the flow-through nature of Canadian income trusts. Subject to a transition period for income trusts that existed before October 31, 2006 and an exemption for qualifying real estate investment trusts ("REITs"), the SIFT Legislation imposes entity-level taxation on Canadian income trusts. On July 20, 2011, in response to certain transactions involving "stapled securities" used to fit within the REIT exemption and certain other stapled security structures that provide tax advantages similar to those associated with income trust structures prior to the enactment of the SIFT Legislation, the Finance Department announced legislative proposals.

One targeted arrangement involves a REIT spinning off into a separate taxable entity assets that it could not hold directly without losing its REIT status, with the securities of the REIT and the sister entity trading together as stapled units. The REIT rents its real property to the sister entity, which operates the facilities. While the new legislation does not affect the status of the REIT itself, any payments (including rent) made by the sister entity to the REIT will not be deductible by it. Thus, income represented by the non-deductible payments will be taxed once in the hands of the sister entity and again in the hands of the REIT unitholders.

Another arrangement targeted by the new legislation involves a trust or corporation reducing or eliminating its taxes through the deduction of interest payments made on subordinated debt that is stapled to its publicly traded units or shares. The new legislation denies the deductibility of such interest payments, making the stapled security structure less efficient than pure equity capitalization for Canadian investors.

The new legislation does not apply until January 1, 2016 for stapled security structures in existence on or before October 31, 2006 and until July 20, 2012 for structures that came into existence after October 31, 2006 but before July 20, 2011.

Partnerships – Deferral of Corporate Tax

In the 2011 federal budget, the Minister of Finance announced the elimination of tax deferrals for corporate partnerships. Legislation containing the relevant rules was enacted on December 15, 2011 generally effective from March 23, 2011.

Income of a partnership is allocated for tax purposes to its partners at the fiscal year-end of the partnership. Because a partnership of corporations can have a fiscal year that differs from the taxation year of its partners, before these rules were introduced, corporate tax could be deferred where the fiscal year of the partnership ended after the taxation year of its corporate partners. The new legislation eliminates this deferral for any corporate partner that, together with related and affiliated persons, has more than a 10% interest in the partnership. The corporate partner will be required to accrue income from the partnership for the portion of the partnership's fiscal year that falls within the corporate partner's taxation year. Although the rules are generally effective from March 23, 2011, transitional rules may permit the incremental amount realized in the first year the rules apply to be included over a five-year period to mitigate the cash impact of income from two or more years being included in a corporate partner's income in that first year.

The Canada Revenue Agency previously allowed a joint venture to establish a fiscal period that was different from the fiscal period of the joint venture participants where there was a valid business reason to justify a different fiscal period of the joint venture. As result of the new partnership rules, the Canada Revenue Agency has stated that its administrative policy on joint ventures will no longer be applicable. Where joint venture participants have relied upon the Canada Revenue Agency's administrative position in previous years, they will be allowed transitional relief consistent with that provided to members of a partnership.

General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR)

On December 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen, a case involving GAAR. The Copthorne decision was highly anticipated with hope that the Supreme Court would provide further guidance on the meaning of the phrase "series of transactions", a term that is fundamental to GAAR and which has received much judicial consideration in that context, although its scope still remains unclear. The phrase is also highly relevant to rules dealing with tax "bumps" in mergers and acquisitions and to tax-effective divisive reorganizations, and some judicial comments in the context of GAAR have been unhelpful in considering the meaning of the phrase in these other contexts.

In Copthorne, a Canadian corporation undertook a series of transactions that had the effect of increasing its paid-up capital to an amount in excess of its shareholder's tax-paid capital investment. Paid-up capital is an important tax attribute because it allows a Canadian corporation to distribute amounts (including Canadian earnings) to non-resident shareholders without Canadian withholding tax even if it has accumulated retained earnings. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal's decision that GAAR applied to the series of transactions to deny the taxpayer the benefit of the increased paid-up capital.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court generally reaffirmed prior statements on the meaning of the phrase "series of transactions" (and on GAAR generally). As such, the decision does little to assist with the uncertainty that often exists in understanding the scope of the phrase "series of transactions" (and interpreting GAAR more generally).

The Assumption of Any Obligation is Additional Proceeds of Disposition?

In Daishowa v. The Queen, the Federal Court of Appeal held that reforestation liabilities assumed by a purchaser of timber rights constituted additional proceeds of disposition to the seller for tax purposes. This decision is of interest to any energy or forestry company that is selling assets where reclamation or reforestation obligations are being assumed and may also have implications to any seller of real property where environmental liabilities or other contingent obligations are assumed or of a business where pension, severance and other future obligations are assumed by the purchaser.

Daishowa, which held timber rights that gave rise to certain reforestation liabilities, accepted an offer for the timber rights of $180 million, less the preliminary estimate of $11 million for the long-term reforestation liability to be assumed by the purchaser, which amount would be adjusted based on a final estimate of the reforestation obligations. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the seller's assumption of the reforestation liabilities constituted consideration to Daishowa and because the parties specifically "agreed to a price of $11,000,000 for the reforestation liability ... they should be held to that price for income tax purposes". The taxpayer has sought leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's decision and it is hoped that the Supreme Court will grant such application. In the meantime, taxpayers negotiating and drafting agreements of purchase and sale should be careful where future obligations are being assumed as the Federal Court of Appeal's decision appears, to a large extent, to have been based on the wording of the agreement between the parties and certain admissions made by the taxpayer.

Other Proposed Amendments

There were a number of other income tax amendments announced by the Finance Department in 2011 including, among other things, amendments to expand the rules dealing with shareholder benefits, extension of the prohibited investment regime from tax-free savings accounts to registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds, and amendments (the subject of comfort letters from 2002) to the safe harbour rules in respect of investment services provided to persons not resident in Canada by Canadian service providers. In addition, there were two proposed amendments to address the decisions in Lehigh and Collins.

  • Withholding Tax on Interest – The Lehigh Amendment. In the Lehigh case, the taxpayer had debt outstanding to a related foreign corporation, the interest on which was subject to Canadian withholding tax. The interest coupons were "stripped" and sold to an arm's length party for the purposes of avoiding withholding tax on the coupons. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that GAAR did not apply to impose withholding tax in spite of the Minister's arguments to the contrary.

    Prior to the Lehigh amendment, Canadian withholding tax applied to interest paid to a non-resident only where: (i) the non-resident did not deal at arm's length with the interest payer; or (ii) the interest constituted "participating debt interest". To address the coupon stripping circumstances in the Lehigh decision, the Finance Department announced amendments that will result in Canadian withholding tax applying to interest paid to a non-resident in respect of debt owed to a person with whom the interest payer is not dealing at arm's length.
  • Contingent Amounts – Collins Amendment. In the Collins case, a taxpayer was allowed to accrue and deduct a higher amount of interest even though the commercial arrangements made it abundantly clear that a lower amount would ultimately be paid. In response to this case, the Finance Department announced amendments that will prohibit a taxpayer from deducting an amount to the extent that the taxpayer, or another taxpayer that does not deal at arm's length with the taxpayer, has a right, whether absolute or contingent, to reduce the amount at that time if it is reasonable to conclude the right will be exercisable. Moreover, the provision is not limited to interest; it applies to any expense or outlay or cost or capital cost of property.

Outlook for Canadian tax developments in 2012

As noted above, there is some question as to whether the gradual phasing in of the scheduled rate reductions in Ontario will continue in 2012.

International Tax Panel Report

In December 2008, a Government-sponsored international tax panel delivered a report making a number of recommendations for reforming Canada's international tax system. While much of the report dealt with the foreign affiliate rules, it also addressed such other topics as Canada's thin capitalization rules and debt dumping. In 2011, the Minister of Finance released its proposed foreign affiliate rules, although they did not reflect (and may be seen as contrary to) many aspects of the international tax panel's report. In 2012, it is possible we could see amendments addressing other topics considered in the panel's report.

Tax Consolidation

In the 2010 federal budget the Canadian Government announced that it would explore the possibility of adopting a formal loss transfer system or consolidated tax reporting for corporate groups, regimes that have been available in the United States and United Kingdom for many years. A discussion paper on the topic prepared by the Finance Department was released at the end of 2010 seeking comments from taxpayers. It is possible that we may see proposals in this regard in 2012.

Outstanding 2010 Measures

A number of legislative measures announced in 2010 remain outstanding, but may finally be enacted in 2012. They include :

  • Aggressive Tax Reporting Regime. The aggressive tax reporting regime is to have retroactive effect to the beginning of 2011. The regime requires the disclosure to the Canada Revenue Agency of tax avoidance transactions where certain "hallmarks" are present. The current version of the draft legislation is extremely broad and can, in some cases, be read to require the disclosure of common commercial transactions. Submissions have been made to the Minister of Finance in the hope that the rules will be revised to more properly align with their purpose. In response to concerns raised by various members of the legal community, the Finance Department issued a comfort letter in 2011 indicating its willingness to amend the proposed rules to explicitly provide that information protected by solicitor-client privilege will not be subject to the regime's mandatory disclosure requirements. However, the Finance Department has not indicated whether any other amendments will be made to the draft legislation. (Québec has enacted an aggressive tax planning reporting regime, which also imposes mandatory disclosure obligations targeting marketed tax transactions but, in addition, includes a voluntary "preventive" disclosure regime for transactions that may be subject to the Québec general anti-avoidance rule and imposes penalties and extends the limitation period where the preventive disclosure is not made.)
  • Foreign Tax Credit Generator Rules. The foreign tax credit generator rules are to be effective for taxation years that end after March 4, 2010. The proposed legislation restricts deductions and credits for foreign taxes in respect of foreign-source income of Canadian taxpayers and their foreign affiliates. While the regime was intended to target very specific types of transactions, the proposed rules released in 2010 were broadly drafted and, as drafted, will adversely affect many investment structures that use hybrid instruments even where no inappropriate tax credits or deductions are generated. In addition, where the rules apply because a foreign affiliate of a taxpayer has issued a hybrid instrument, the draft rules appear to affect all foreign affiliates of all Canadian companies in the taxpayer's related group, rather than being isolated to the particular foreign affiliate or foreign affiliate group where the hybrid instrument exists. Hopefully, these rules will be revised before they are enacted to better focus on their intended target but, in the meantime, they present concerns in many surprising circumstances.
  • Foreign Investment Entities and Non-Resident Trusts. Complex proposals with respect to non-resident trusts ("NRTs") and foreign investment entities ("FIEs") were first introduced in the 1999 budget and substantially revised on several occasions over the following decade without ever being enacted. To address concerns about the complexity of the proposals as well as numerous technical problems, in 2010 the proposed NRT rules were further amended and the FIE rules abandoned in favour of limited amendments to the existing offshore investment-fund property rules. The decision to scale back the proposed NRT rules and abandon the FIE rules greatly simplifies tax reporting for many Canadians with international holdings. However, the proposed NRT rules remain relevant to foreign trusts and Canadians with interests in them. While these rules are still very complex and not free of technical problems, a number (but not all) of the most troubling aspects of the prior proposals were addressed resulting in rules better focused on their target, namely the use of offshore trusts by Canadians to minimize or avoid Canadian tax.

Expected Judicial Developments in 2012

Judicial developments in 2012 may include consideration of beneficial ownership in the context of tax treaties, transfer pricing and offshore trusts.

  • Beneficial Ownership. In Prévost Car Inc. v. The Queen, the CRA argued that a shareholder was not entitled to benefits under the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention in respect of dividends paid by the taxpayer to the shareholder because the shareholder was not the beneficial owner of the dividends. The Canada Revenue Agency was unsuccessful at the Tax Court and, on February 26, 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the Tax Court's decision. Although the Prévost decision is very helpful for non-residents investing in Canada through a third jurisdiction that has a beneficial tax treaty with Canada, it does not deal with "back-to-back" arrangements, and its significance in such circumstances is less clear. There is at least one decision pending (Velcro Canada Inc. v. The Queen) that concerns beneficial ownership for the purposes of a Canadian income tax treaty in the context of a back-to-back arrangement and may clarify this issue. While the Velcro case was heard in 2011, the decision has not yet been rendered. It is expected that the judgment will be released in early 2012.
  • Transfer Pricing. On March 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the 2010 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen. The taxpayer in the case packaged and sold Zantac, a patented and trademarked drug, in Canada. The Canada Revenue Agency argued that the taxpayer paid an unreasonable amount to a related Swiss sister company for the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Zantac. The taxpayer licensed the Zantac trademark and patents from its parent for use in Canada under a licensing agreement that obligated the taxpayer to purchase the ingredient from the related Swiss company. The Tax Court held that the taxpayer had overpaid for the ingredient on the basis of evidence that, in the years in question, Canadian generic companies were able to purchase the ingredient for a price less than that paid by the taxpayer. In 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed this decision and returned it to the Tax Court for reconsideration on the basis that the Tax Court had not considered "all relevant circumstances which an arm's length purchaser would have had to consider", particularly the license agreement with the parent. The appeal from this decision is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2012. This will be the Supreme Court's first transfer pricing case.
  • Offshore Trusts. The Supreme Court of Canada has granted the taxpayer in St. Michael Trust Corp. v. The Queen (more commonly known as Garron et al. v. The Queen) leave to appeal the decision rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2010. The taxpayer in the case claimed an exemption under the Canada-Barbados Income Tax Convention from Canadian capital gains tax on the sales of shares of a Canadian corporation by a family trust established in Barbados. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Tax Court of Canada's decision that the disposition of shares was subject to Canadian tax. The trust was found to be resident in Canada and not Barbados based on the role played by the Canadian principals in the transactions. In coming to this conclusion, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the Tax Court of Canada's approach of effectively applying the corporate residence test of central management and control (rather than simply the residence of the trustee) in determining the residence of the trust, arguably a new judicial development. The appeal in this case is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on March 13, 2012.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Moodys Gartner Tax Law LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Moodys Gartner Tax Law LLP
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions