Canada: Proposed Canadian "Income Sprinkling" Rules V2: Not Many Feathers, Lots Of Hissing

Last Updated: December 18 2017
Article by Kenneth Keung

1.   Executive Summary

On December 13, 2017, the tax and business community finally got the chance to review version two of the tax on split income ("TOSI") or the so-called "income sprinkling" proposals. The Department of Finance originally announced that these revised proposals would be released later this fall. That would make this release two weeks early (if one subscribes to the astronomical definition of the seasons rather than the meteorological, which would have defined fall to end on November 30), but is the revised proposal a gift or a lump of coal?

After briefly reviewing these proposals, we are disappointed. Yes, major overhaul has been done to remove some of the most problematic issues of the originally proposed TOSI rules, many of which were brought to the government's attention through the 51-page joint committee  submission in which our firm has been actively involved. However, the fact that a "reasonableness" test and substantial complexity still exists is disheartening due to the uncertainty and difficulty they will create for taxpayers in applying the rules and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Courts enforcing them.

We also believe that income splitting should be permitted between spouses (not just for private business income, but for all types of income) since we do not think it's fair or appropriate for tax policy to ignore indirect contributions of one spouse to the success of the other. In our view, a much better approach in addressing the government's perceived abuse would have been to adopt a bright-line age-24 test whereby the TOSI applies to all individuals age 24 and under (with limited exclusions for special circumstances), and to no one over that age threshold. This approach would probably prevent the most egregious situations that the government is offended by and would have caused the least disruption to Canadian private businesses. V2 of the TOSI rules missed the opportunity to provide simple and objective rules to address the perceived mischief. Disappointing.

Louis XIV's finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, said "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."  Sadly, the various tax changes by our government over the last two years (e.g. subsection 55(2), small business deduction changes, work-in-progress rules for professionals) have strayed significantly from this principle.

2. A Technical Review of V2 of the TOSI Proposals – December 13, 2017

For the technically inclined, the balance of this blog will be of interest. If you're not technically inclined, suffice it to say that the rules are complex and you can stop here and get specialist advice before advising on future income splitting. 

In V2, the government was able to reduce the applicable draft legislation from 15 pages to 11. Although there have been noticeable simplifications—the circularity of the July 18, 2017 proposed legislation has been minimized and replaced by introducing more definitions, for instance—there still remains significant convolutedness. Unfortunately, the current (and much more sensible) "kiddie tax rules" remain a mere shadow of the new proposed rules. Some say you cannot argue with progress, but that definitely was not us.

Put simply, the TOSI rules apply the highest marginal rate of personal tax to income that is "split income" received by a "specified individual" and that is not an "excluded amount."

December 13, 2017 changes to the definition of "specified individual"

Where the proposals from July 18 seriously convoluted the definition of a "specified individual" by including reference and connection to income from the business, the version from December 13 simplified and broadened the definition to generally include any adult individual who is a resident in Canada, or any minor whose parent is a resident in Canada.

December 13 changes to the definition of "split Income"

Under the July 18 proposed TOSI rules, the definition of split income was expanded to include income from indebtedness, income or capital gains from the disposition of property, income from a conferred benefit and secondary income earned on income previously subject to the attribution rules or TOSI rules. The December 13 proposed legislation has taken a middle-ground approach by retaining the indebtedness income and income or capital gains from the disposition of property, while dropping the latter two additions from July 18. The table below summarizes the current definition as compared to the July 18 proposed definition of split income and again compared to the December 13 proposed definition.

Current Definition

July 18 Proposed Definition

December 13 Proposed Definition

(a) Unlisted dividends and shareholder benefits

(a) Unlisted dividends and shareholder benefits

(a) Unlisted dividends and shareholder benefits

(b) Partnership income

(b) Partnership income

(b) Partnership income

(c) Trust income

(c) Trust income

(c) Trust income


(d) Indebtedness income

(d) Indebtedness income


(e) Income or gains from dispositions of property

(e) Income or gains from dispositions of property


(f) Income from conferred benefit; and

(f) – income from conferred benefit; and


(g) Secondary income

(g) – secondary income


December 13 changes to the definition of "Excluded Amount"

The definition of "excluded amount" has been greatly expanded from the July 18 version to include income resulting from:

  • Property transferred in respect of a separation agreement in the context of a breakdown of a marriage or common-law partnership;
  • A taxable capital gain that results on the deemed disposition as a result of the death of a taxpayer; and
  • A taxable capital gain from the disposition of qualified farm or fishing property or qualified small business corporation shares;

These additions are certainly welcomed, and, particularly the expansion to relationship breakdown and death, are necessary to prevent unfair tax results arising from dispositions that are entirely involuntary.

The previous references in the July 18 version to "split portion" and the reasonableness test contained therein has been removed. Instead, analogous concepts have been imported into the "excluded amount" definition directly through a number of new defined terms: "excluded business," "excluded shares," "safe harbor capital return" and "reasonable return." The easiest way to explain how the "excluded amount" definition applies in practice is to break the rules down as to how they apply to each of the following four age categories:

i.  under age 18;
ii. age 18 to 24; or
iii. age 25 and over, unless the individual's spouse who is the primary business contributor has reached the age of 65; and
iv. spouse is age 65 and older.

i) Under age 18

Any income described in the definition of split income received by a minor (unless from certain inherited property) is subject to the TOSI. The existing kiddie tax rules remain with virtually no changes, other than the inclusion of indebtedness income and income or capital gains from the disposition of property as described above.

ii) Age 18 to 24

Income described in the definition of split income received by an individual that has reached the age of 17 but not the age of 24 before the year is subject to the TOSI rules unless the amount received is considered to fall into one of five exclusions.

Firstly, there is an exception of certain inherited properties similar to minors. Secondly, if the income in question is not derived directly or indirectly from a "related business," it is not subject to the TOSI rules. For example, Mr. A owns and operates a corporation and the corporation declares and pays a dividend to his 18-year-old daughter. Because of Mr. A's relation to his daughter, the dividend income is considered to be from a "related business" and would be subject to the TOSI rules unless it falls into another exclusion. Alternatively, if Mr. A's daughter receives dividends from a corporation in which no related person is actively engaged or is a 10 per cent (or more) owner, she would not be deriving income from a "related business" and TOSI should not apply to her. The July 18 proposal extended the meaning of related persons to uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews—this change has been abandoned in the December 13 proposal.

Thirdly, income derived directly or indirectly from an "excluded business" is excluded from the TOSI rules application. An "excluded business" is considered to include a business in which the individual is actively engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis in either the taxation year in question, or any five historical years. Whether an individual meets this actively engaged threshold appears to be a factual test, but in an attempt at a bright-line test, the government enacted a deeming rule whereby one is deemed to have met the actively engaged threshold by working in the business at least an average of 20 hours per week during the portion of the year in which the business is operational.

Certainly, it will be ideal to be able to rely on the 20-hour test rather than trying to substantiate that one has engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis, but this will presumably require increased efforts in the form of record keeping tracking hours worked (timesheets for everyone! Yay!) Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the "excluded business" rule is that once an individual has met the actively engaged test for five years, which do not need to be consecutive, then the individual (and anyone inheriting the individual's interest) will forever be protected by the "excluded business" exclusion. This is probably what the government meant when they touted that someone who made a "meaningful contribution" will not be subject to TOSI

Therefore, if Mr. A's daughter averaged at least 20 hours per week of work in the business operated by Mr. A's corporation from 2014 through 2018, Mr. A can pay his daughter any amount of dividend every year starting from 2014 and for the entire lifetime of the daughter without TOSI applying to the daughter (to the extent she is 18 or over in 2014).[1]

If the individual between age 18 to 24 derives income from a "related business" and has not worked for a sufficient amount of time in the business to qualify under the "excluded business," the individual could potentially still qualify for the "safe harbour capital return" exclusion to minimize or potentially eliminate the amount of income subject to TOSI. This exclusion reduces the income includable in TOSI by a notional amount calculated by the prescribed rate of interest multiplied by the fair market value ("FMV") of property contributed by the individual in support of the related business. It is important to note that the computation of safe harbour capital return does not require a carve-out of capital obtained from a non-arm's length source, but the prescribed rate of interest is a low rate (currently 1%). Therefore, if Mr. A's daughter (between age 18 to 24) has contributed $100,000 to Mr. A's corporation either as debt or equity and Mr. A's daughter does not work in the business, she will be allowed $1,000 of income per year before TOSI starts applying, under the current prescribed rate of interest

If the individual between age 18 to 24 derives income from a "related business," has not worked sufficient amount to qualify under "excluded business," and is earning more income than the "safe harbour capital return," the individual could still reduce or potentially eliminate TOSI income using the fifth and final exclusion: the "reasonable return" exclusion. This exclusion is a resurrection of the July 18 reasonableness test, but for individuals in this age group, the reasonableness test is to be applied having regard only to contribution of "arm's length capital" by the individual. The December 13 version of the reasonableness test refers to the following factors, assessed based on relative contributions of the individual and each related person:

  • The work performed by the individual;
  • The property contributed directly or indirectly by the individual (but, as stated above, could only consider "arm's length capital" for this age group);
  • The risks assumed by the individual in respect of the business;
  • The total amounts already paid to or for the benefit of the individual in respect of the business;and
  • Any other factors that may be relevant.

There are a number of interesting observations to be made from this. Like the July 18 version of the proposed rule, there is uncertainty whether historical contribution of work / property contributed / risk assumed can be considered in the reasonableness test. It is possible to interpret the provision to mean that one can only look at current year contributions. On the other hand, practical challenges abound if a business owner needs to tally all historical amounts already paid to him or her since inception of the business in order to arrive at what is reasonable in the current year. It is disappointing that the government did not take the opportunity to clarify this in the legislation.

An interesting addition to the test is the "any other facts that may be relevant." This could be used to address situations where profits are not tied directly to work / property contributed / risk assumed, e.g. windfall gains. On the flip side, this could be used by the CRA to reduce the reasonable amount an individual is otherwise entitled to if it feels there are "other factors" present that justify such a reduction. Time will tell how this discretion will be applied.

Perhaps the most interesting, though, is that this revised reasonableness test no longer refers to an arm's length standard. Instead, the test focuses on the relative contribution of each related persons. Of course, it is still a subjective and potentially difficult exercise to measure and compare the contribution of each person to a business, but at least there appears to no longer be a requirement to benchmark a business owner's return against an arm's length standard which the July 18 version would have required.

iii) Age 25 and over

The rules are less stringent for individuals who have attained the age of 24 before the year. Just like the 18 to 24 age group, an individual who has attained age 24 before the year will not be subject to TOSI if the income is not derived directly or indirectly from a "related business" or if the income is derived from an "excluded business." In addition to this, individuals in this age group will not be subject to TOSI on income from "excluded shares."

 "Excluded shares" are defined to mean shares of a corporation owned by the individual where:

  • Less than 90% of its "business income" for the last tax year that ends at or before that time was from the provision of services;
  • The corporation is not a professional corporation;
  • Immediately before that time, the individual owns shares representing at least 10% of the votes and FMV of the corporation;
  • All or substantially all of the income of the corporation's income for the last tax year that ends at or before that time is not derived directly or indirectly from another related business, e.g. collecting rent from a related business.

At first glance the "excluded shares" exclusion appears to be a generous exclusion for adult individuals who are not professionals and who own 10% or more of a corporation, allowing them unlimited opportunity to income split. Many typical private corporations are held 50/50 by spouses or common-law partners, thus each shareholder would hold more than 10% of votes and value. However, there are a number of potential issues that could arise that make this "excluded shares" exclusion to become unavailable. We will discuss some of these issues in more detail below.

When an individual in this age group does not meet any of the exclusions discussed, the individual could still qualify for the "reasonable return" exclusion based on the work performed / property contributed / risks assumed / historical payments factors discussed earlier for individuals between 18 to 24 years of age. The difference is that individuals over 24 will not be required to exclude property that is not "arm's length capital."  

iv) Individual with a spouse who is 65 and up

In an attempt to align with the existing pension income-splitting rules, the TOSI rules will not apply to income received by an individual from a related business if the individual's spouse or common-law partner has attained the age of 64 before the year and the amount would have been an excluded amount were it to be included in her or his income. In other words, income splitting from a private business will generally be allowed starting in the year a contributing spouse turns 65.

TOSI Rules on Capital Gains

Subsections 120.4(4) and (5) are currently in place to re-characterize an otherwise capital gain into a dividend under certain non-arm's length dispositions. The July 18 proposals expanded the application from minor shareholders to also include adults, resulting in very adverse tax consequences in many unexpected situations. In the latest version, subsections (4) and (5) has been narrowed back to only being applicable to minors. The business and tax community can breathe a collective sigh of relief at least on this front.

Under the December 13 proposal, TOSI will not apply to capital gain on disposition of qualified farm or fishing property (QFP) or qualified small business corporation (QSBC) shares, regardless of the age of the holder or whether the lifetime capital gain exemption (LCGE) is claimed. This means that capital gain splitting with non-active family members and multiplication of the LCGE will still be allowed for shares and property that qualify. Capital gains on shares or property that do not qualify will be subject to the same TOSI rules and exclusions described earlier. Regularly purifying private corporations to maintain QSBC share status will likely be a more prominent tax planning strategy going forward as a result.

Effective Date

Proposed rules still apply for 2018 and subsequent years, i.e. 2017 is the last year under the current TOSI regime. However, it is worth noting that for taxpayers seeking to rely on the "excluded shares" exclusion, they will have until the end of 2018 to meet the condition of owning at least 10% of the outstanding shares of a corporation in terms of votes and value. Notwithstanding, it is disappointing that the Government did not delay the application of these proposals to January 1, 2019.  As mentioned, the proposals are very complex and it will certainly take the tax and business community quite some time to digest and properly apply. Affected taxpayers deserve more time to appropriately understand and properly plan their affairs.

Problems with the "Excluded Shares" Exclusion

i. Carve-out for professional corporation and service businesses

It's no surprise that the government would deny the benefit of the "excluded shares" exclusion to professional corporations given its rhetoric over the last two years against professionals, especially doctors. A professional whose spouse or common-law partner also owns shares in the professional corporation will not be able to rely on this exclusion to income split, because of the explicit carve-out of professional corporation in the definition of "excluded shares." The spouse or common-law partner will have to rely on other exclusions, such as working over 20 hours per week in order to qualify for the "excluded business" exception.

What is surprising is that the government is denying this exclusion to any and all businesses who derive their income from the provision of services. The policy rationale behind this is presumably that the government does not want businesses that are 'professional-like' to be able to enjoy the exclusion.

However, to discriminate against all service business in one broad stroke is analogous to shooting mice with an elephant gun, especially given that a large majority of Canadian businesses are service-oriented.[2] For example, a couple who starts a hair salon as 50/50 shareholders will not be able to income split if one spouse does not contribute to the business; whereas another couple who starts a hotdog stand as 50/50 shareholders will be able to income split regardless of contribution. Both businesses could have similar capital requirements and risk profile, but the tax treatment is vastly different simply because one couple went into the service industry and the other decides to sell products.

This also affects large family-owned service businesses, such as construction service companies, oilfield services companies, etc. We believe this is a very unfair approach that unnecessarily punishes the majority of privately-owned businesses, and we believe that proper enforcement of the current personal services business rules would have been sufficient to address most of the government's concerns.

ii.    All or substantially all of the income not derived from another "related business"

Another part of the definition of "excluded shares" that appears problematic is the requirement that all or substantially all of the income of the corporation not be derived directly or indirectly from another "related business." Assume a typical Holdco-Opco structure where Holdco shares are owned 50/50 by husband and wife. Opco's business would be a related business to both husband and wife because each them indirectly owns 10% or more of Opco. This would mean that Holdco shares can probably never be "excluded shares" because its income is indeed derived directly or indirectly from another "related business." Hopefully this is an unintended technical glitch because we see no policy rationale as to why a private business owner should be punished simply because a multi-tier holding structure is chosen, which often is done for important business reasons. However, what is the likelihood of the government fixing this glitch retroactively effective January 1, 2018? One would hope so since the one year transitional period for "excluded shares" only apply in respect of the 10% holding requirement.

iii. What is "business income?"

One more aspect of the "excluded shares" exclusion that is sure to result in uncertainty and controversy is that one of its key conditions is based on the concept of "business income." "Business income" is not a term that has been used elsewhere in the Act. On the one hand, there has always been a distinction between income from property and income from business, and the courts have generally distinguished between the two by considering the level of services, the number and value of transactions, the time devoted to the activity, etc. On the other hand, a "business" is broadly defined in subsection 248(1), and includes an "undertaking of any kind whatever."

So, what is "business income?" This will be an important distinction, for example, for a holding corporation whose sole activity is to make investments. Is the income from such investments "business income" or not? If not, the shares of the corporation could potentially be "excluded shares" for any family shareholder owning 10% or more, thus allowing income splitting regardless of contribution.

iv.  Is the new "Excluded Shares" Definition a Disguised Attack on Family Trusts?

The requirement of 10% votes and value explicitly refers to shares that are owned by an individual. A common holding structure for private corporations is to hold the shares in family trusts. When the private corporation pays a dividend to the family trust, the trust often distributes that dividend to a beneficiary of the trust. Similarly, if the family trust disposes of the shares of the private corporation, the trust may distribute the taxable capital gain to a beneficiary. Although subsections 104(19), (21) and (21.2) of the Act allow the trust to make designations to deem a beneficiary to have received the respective dividend or taxable capital gain, and even deem the beneficiary to have disposed of the shares in question, the Act does not deem the beneficiary to hold or own the private corporation shares held by the trust. Because of this, it is possible that beneficiaries of a family trust would never be able to rely on the "excluded shares" exclusion for dividends or taxable capital gains allocated from a trust. Is this an intentional result by the government? Possibly.

Recall that the July 18 proposal denied the claiming of LCGE of any property held in trust but the government announced in October 2017 that they had abandoned those proposals. This is perhaps an alternative way to curb income and capital gain splitting through trusts. Nevertheless, even if the "excluded shares" exclusion is unavailable, an individual disposing of properties that are not QSBC or QFP property could still potentially avoid TOSI by meeting the "excluded business" or "reasonable return" exclusions with sufficient contributions.

3. Concluding Comments

Phew! All we have done here is only a preliminary overview of the December 13 TOSI proposals. There are likely many more issues and technical glitches in the legislation that tax geeks like us will stumble across in the coming weeks. By the government's own account, these TOSI measures will generate approximately $200 million of additional tax revenue per year—a drop in the bucket for the government's budget. Yet, the administrative and documentation burden for Canadian private businesses will be enormous, particularly when coupled with the corporate passive income proposal that the government is committed to introducing.

Finally, as has been common with our existing government, a gender-based analysis commentary is included as part of the TOSI proposals:

Data show that men represent over 70% of higher-income earners initiating income sprinkling strategies, and women represent about 68% of recipients of sprinkled dividends (and 58% of recipients of income derived from trust and partnerships). While this income is of benefit for recipients, it also creates incentives that reduce female participation in the workforce. Increased participation of women in the workforce is a source of economic opportunity for individuals and is a major driver of overall economic growth.

We had to read the above twice to make sure the government was serious when they produced such commentary. Really? This statement is shocking especially to members of our firm who have children and stay-at-home spouses. Without exception, the decision for members of our firm who have stay-at-home spouses was made for the betterment of the family as a whole with tax impacts not at all being part of the analysis for the resulting decision. To suggest that the income-sprinkling proposals will contribute to incentives for stay-at-home females to enter the workforce is nonsensical and offensive (notwithstanding that the authors are not economists and have not studied gender-based issues but instead rely on real life and common sense). 

For a little bit of feathers, there will a lot of hissing indeed.


[1] This relieving rule is actually prejudicial against new entrepreneurs. Owners of established private businesses who are able to substantiate five years of active engagement will be able to income split for the rest of their lives, and when these owners pass away, their descendants inheriting their interest will also be entitled to receive income without TOSI applying again for the rest of their lives. Contrast this to a family starting out a new business in 2018, having to start the 5-year clock and having to cope with the TOSI rules.

[2] June 2016 statistics from the Government of Canada website states that "of all employer businesses, 916,527 (78.5 %) operate in the service-producing sector, compared with 251,451 (21.5%) in the goods-producing sector."

Moodys Gartner Tax Law is only about tax. It is not an add-on service, it is our singular focus. Our Canadian and US lawyers and Chartered Accountants work together to develop effective tax strategies that get results, for individuals and corporate clients with interests in Canada, the US or both. Our strengths lie in Canadian and US cross-border tax advisory services, estateplanning, and tax litigation/dispute resolution. We identify areas of risk and opportunity, and create plans that yield the right balance of protection, optimization and compliance for each of our clients' special circumstances.

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

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

Kenneth Keung
Events from this Firm
1 Dec 2018, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

On Dec. 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the biggest US tax reform bill in 31 years, changing the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

5 Dec 2018, Webinar, Calgary, Canada

This technical session will be of interest to advisors to private businesses (accountants, lawyers, investment and insurance advisors, bankers, trust officers and others) and business owners

6 Dec 2018, Webinar, Calgary, Canada

This 90-minute session will review last-minute planning for owner-managers and their advisors to consider before January 1, 2019.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Collins Barrow National Incorporated
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Collins Barrow National Incorporated
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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