India: Supreme Court Ruling On Outsourcing: Part Two

Industry Opens Debate On Interpretation Of Permanent Establishment Issues

4.5. Transfer pricing and attribution of profits to a permanent establishment

4.5.1. Morgan Stanley case

Under Art. 7 of both the OECD Model Convention and UN Model Treaty, a foreign enterprise is liable to tax in the source country on its business profits which are attributable to the PE in the source country This provision specifies how such business profits should be ascertained, and states that a PE is to be treated as if it is an independent enterprise (profit centre) apart from the head office and which deals with the head office at arms length. Therefore, its profits are determined as if it were an independent enterprise. Art. 7(2) of the UN Model Treaty advocates the arms length approach for attribution of profits to a PE. Under Art. 7(2), economic nexus is an important issue of the principle of profit attribution to a PE. Therefore, in the Morgan Stanley case the Supreme Court held that only the profits of MSCo that have an economic nexus with the PE in India are taxable in India.





The Supreme Court came to an important conclusion signifying that because MSCorendered services to MSAS through the employees it seconded to MSAS, MSCo had a service PE in India through MSAS, that is, MSAS is the service FE of MSCo. The Supreme Courts conclusion that the service PE and the service provider are one, and thus the subsidiary, MSAS, constitutes the service PE, adds another dimension to the case, because generally it is understood that only in the case of an agency PE does the agent constitutes a PE of the foreign enterprise. This important distinction must be kept in mind, as the concession granted by the Supreme Court decision is based on this important conclusion, which is discussed below.

Thus, the Supreme Court held that because the remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing analysis, no further income could be attributed to the PE, i.e. where an associated enterprise that also constitutes a PE (in this case, MSAS) is remunerated on an arms length basis, taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the enterprise (the PE), no further profit is attributable to the PE. However, where the transfer pricing analysis does not adequately reflect the functions performed and the risks borne by the enterprise, it would be necessary to further attribute profits to the PE for those functions/risks that have not been considered. This determination would depend on the functional and factual analysis undertaken in each case. It was further held that the TNMM is the appropriate method for determining the arms length consideration in the transactions between MSCo and MSAS.

The above indicates that the tax liability of a non-resident entity is extinguished if an associated enterprise (that also constitutes a PE) is remunerated on an arms length basis, taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the enterprise (PE). As such, this decision will apply only in those cases where the PE is also constituted by the functioning of the associated enterprise and the associated enterprise is remunerated on an arms length basis after taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the PE, i.e. the functions performed and risks borne by the PE are appropriately captured by the associated enterprise.

In the Morgan Stanley case, it seems that the Supreme Court has adopted an approach that is almost similar to the single-taxpayer approach for the attribution of profits which is in contrast to the authorized approach of the OECD; indeed the judgment leaves room for further profits to be attributed to a PE if the factual and functional analysis of the associated entity does not fully capture the functionality of the PE. The OECD Report on the Attribution of Profits to a permanent establishment provides that, for tax purposes, in the source country there are two taxpayers, namely the dependent agent (resident) and the dependent agent PE (non-resident). The functions carried out and the risks borne by these two are to be considered and compensated separately In the source country two separate tax returns must be filed, one for the dependent agent (resident) and one for the non-resident (PE). The OECD Report also suggests that the source country could have the right to tax the dependent agent PE even where the dependent agent has been compensated by an arms length consideration. Para. 279 of the OECD Report reads as follows:

In calculating the profits attributable to the dependent agent PE it would be necessary to determine and deduct an arms length reward to the dependent agent enterprise (taking into account its assets and its risks). Issues arise as to whether there would remain any profits to be attributed to the dependent agent PE after an arms length reward has been given to the dependent agent enterprise. In accordance with the principles outlined above, the answer is that it depends on the precise facts and circumstances as revealed by the functional and factual analysis. The reward should provide the appropriate remuneration for the functions performed (taking into account the assets used and risks assumed) by the dependent agent enterprise in its own right. However, a functional analysis of a transaction may show that the ability to assume the risks arising from the transaction is not found in the dependent agent enterprise, for example because it has insufficient capital to support the risks assumed. Rather the ability to assume the risks is generally found in the non-resident enterprise in whose books the transaction and the resultant risk appears. The reward for the capital to support those risks clearly belongs to the non-resident enterprise, not the dependent agent enterprise. The question is which part of the non-resident enterprise. The answer is that under the authorized OECD approach, these risks, and therefore the capital needed to support them, will be attributed to the dependent agent PE to the extent that they arise from functions performed by the dependent agent in the host country on behalf of the non-resident enterprise. In short when attributing profits to the dependent agent PE, there are likely to be profits (or losses) over and above the armc length reward paid to the dependent agent enterprise. This principle can be illustrated by the following commonly occurring situation where the trades of a broker-dealer in the host country are booked in the accounts of a non-resident enterprise. The analysis applied to the functions performed by the dependent agent for attributing the assets and risks to the dependent agent PE is the same analysis applicable to determining the assumption of risk within a single enterprise as discussed in Section D-1(i)(b)12

Attention is also drawn to the two-step process13 enunciated by Australian Taxation Ruling TR 2001/11, which states that Australias PE attribution rules use a two-step process to apply an arms length separate-enterprise principle in attributing profits to a PE:

Step 1: Undertake a functional analysis, which attributes to the PE the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed [FARI by the enterprise in respect of the business it carries on through the PR

Step 2: Undertake a comparability analysis, which determines an arms length return for the FAR attributed to the PR

The Australian tax administration has clarified that this process applies to all PEs, including dependent agent PEs. In performing this process, it is critical to properly distinguish between two different taxpayer enterprises with different FAR and, invariabl)c different taxable profits, that is:

  • Foreign Company, through its dependent agent PE, and
  • Subsidiary Company, through its agency activities.

The FAR of the dependent agent PE are the FAR for Foreign Company, not Subsidiary Company, in respect of the agency activity. The dependent agent PE is attributed profit of Foreign Company, not Subsidiary Company, arising from the agency activity. Thus the profit attributable to Foreign Companys dependent agent PE is not merely an arms length profit for the agent activity. Rather, it is an arms length profit for the FAR of Foreign Company in respect of the agency activity performed by Subsidiary Company on behalf of Foreign Company.

The taxable profit of the dependent agent PE is calculated by taking some part of Foreign Companyc income from the activity performed by the agent and deducting the expenses (including the service fee paid to Subsidiary Company) Foreign Company incurs in deriving that income. Accordingly, while an armc length service fre paid by Foreign Company may be an armc length re wa rd for the agentc FAR, it does not follow that it also constitutes the armc length rewardfor the dependent agentc PEc FAR14

However, the Supreme Court held in the Morgan Stanley case that the tax liability of the non-resident entity is extinguished if an associated enterprise (that also constitutes a PE) is remunerated on an arms length basis, taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the enterprise. This means that this decision will apply only in those cases where the PE is also constituted by the functioning of the associated enterprise and the associated enterprise is remunerated on an armc length basis after taking into account all risk-taking functions of the FE, i.e. the functions performed and risks borne by the PE are appropriately captured in the associated enterprise. It seems clear that the Supreme Court dissented from the view expressed by the OECD Report that, the payment of arms length remuneration does notnecessarily extinguish the tax liability of the non-resident in the host country.

However, an analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court reveals that the concession is granted with a caveat that the associated enterprise should completely "capture the factual and functional analysis of the PE Then and only then will the concession of the decision apply, namely that if the associated enterprise also comprises the PE of the foreign enterprise (which is likely only in two scenarios, i.e. agency PE and service PE), then if its factual and functional analysis also encompasses the same of the PE, the arms length return earned by the associated enterprise extinguishes any further profit attribution to the PE of the foreign enterprise. The example below (based on the facts in Morgan Stanley) explains how the PE attribution is nil if the functionality of the PE is captured by the associated enterprise.

4.5.2. Tribunal Ruling in SET Satellite case

In Dy Director of Income Tax v. SET Satellite (Singapore) Ftc Ltd,15 the Mumbai Tribunal took a contrary view that the income of a foreign company in India may be taxed even where the foreign company pays an arms length remuneration to its dependent agent in India. In this case, SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd (SET Satellite) was a foreign telecasting company resident in Singapore. SET

Satellite was in the business of creating and operating satellite television channels, marketing and distributing such channels in India and providing related support services to Indian customers. SET Satellite appointed an agent in India to market air time slots to various advertisers in India on its behalf. The agent in India constituted a PE of the taxpayer in India, and SET Satellite remunerated the agent on an arms length basis for the services rendered with regard to the marketing of air time. The Indian assessing officer determined that SET Satelliteearned income taxable in India and computed the tax base at 10% of the advertisement revenue. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the taxpayers argument that because the remuneration was on arms length terms, it had no further tax liability in India. The tax authorities further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).

The Tribunal first concluded that a dependent agent and a dependent agent PE (or DAPE) are distinct entities. A DAPE is not the dependent agent per se, but rather a DAPE exists (hypothetically) by virtue of an enterprise having a dependent agent. Under Art. 5(8) of the India Singapore treaty, where an agent, other than an independent agent, satisfies at least one of the tests set out in Art. 5(8), the enterprise will be deemed to have a PE in the other contracting state. Thus, the Tribunal held that the profits attributable to the PE under Art. 7 of the treaty are the profits of the foreign company and not those of the dependent agent. Mere payment of arms length remuneration to a dependent agent does not necessarily extinguish the tax liability of the foreign company in India. The Tribunal stated that a DAPE is a hypothetical establishment, the taxability of which depends on the income from the activities of the foreign company that are attributable to the PE, which in itself is based on the functions performed, assets deployed and risks borne (FAR) by the foreign company with regard to the activities carried out in India. In other words, the income generated as a result of the functions performed, assets deployed and risks borne by the DAPE is considered the "hypothetical" income of the DAPE, with a deduction allowed with regard to all expenses incurred by the foreign company, including any remuneration paid to the dependent agent.

The Tribunal rejected the taxpayers arguments that it should take into consideration the 2006 ruling of the AAR in the Morgan Stanley case, where the AAR ruled that the payment of arms length remuneration by a foreign enterprise to its dependent agent does extinguish the tax liability of the foreign enterprise in India. The Tribunal stated that AAR rulings apply only in the context of the taxpayer to which the ruling was issued, and therefore are not binding in the case at hand.

However, the Supreme Court has taken a contrary view in its judgement in the Morgan Stanley case and therefore, it seems that the above decision of the Mumbai Tribunal has now been overruled by the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley with regard to the issue of whether the payment of an arms length remuneration by a foreign enterprise to its dependent agent does extinguish the tax liability of the foreign enterprise in India, in the limited factual pattern noted above. The decisions concession as regards the attribution of profits to a PE should be interpreted in the facts of the case, and cannot be said to set forth a universal norm. It would be painting too broad a brush stroke to specify a principle that an arms length return earned by an associated enterprise always extinguishes the possibility that any further income will be attributed to the foreign enterprises PE. Thus, it is necessary to consider the fact pattern of each case and apply the principles emerging from this case.

4.5.3. Recent Tribunal Ruling in Galileo case

In a recent decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the Galileo International Inc. case,16 the Tribunal observed that Gil had availed itself of the services of Interglobe to promote the use of CRS in India and for that purpose to recruit travel agents in India. The Tribunal held that Interglobe could be said to have exercised an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of Gil and Interglobe thus should be treated as an agent of Gil in India because:



  • Interglobe was authorized to enter into contracts with the subscribers and Gil was bound by the bookings made by subscribers using the CRS; and
  • reservations and ticketing carried out using the CRS products were honoured by the participants (airlines etc).

Therefore, the Tribunal ultimately held that Gil has both a fixed-place PE and an agency PE in India.

As regards the attribution of profits, the Tribunal found that only part of the CRS operated in India. The work in India was only to the extent of generating requests and receiving the end result of the process in India. The major portion of the work was processed at the host computer in the United States; Indian activities were only a minuscule portion. The Tribunal found that the majority of the functions were performed outside India. Even the majority of the assets (e.g. the host computer) was outside India. The CRS was developed and maintained outside India. The risk, in this regard, remained entirely with Gil in the United States, i.e. outside India.

On the basis of this function, asset and risk analysis, especially considering the value situated outside India, the Tribunal attributed 15% of the revenue accruing to Gil with regard to bookings made in India as income accruing or arising in India. The Tribunal further observed that, broadly, Gil paid 33.3% of its gross revenue from income arising on account of bookings from India to its agent in India (i.e. Interglobe). Thus, with regard to the activities carried out in India, and considering the income accruing in India, the remuneration paid to the Indian agent consumed the entire income accruing or arising in India. The Tribunal noted that the entire payment made by Gil to Intergiobe had to be allowed as an expense in computing its total income (implying that such payment was arms length). Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in the Morgan Stanley case, the Tribunal held that no further income of Gil was taxable in India.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court decision in Morgan Stanley tends to bring out the various nuances emerging from constantly changing economic scenarios, where the rapid pace of information and telecommunication technology constantly challenge the traditional concept of interpreting the PE article under an applicable treaty. It is necessary to tread cautiously when applying the rationale of the Supreme Court, as sometimes both taxpayers and tax authorities would like to read too much in a ruling in seeking to attain their desired result. Tax practitioners have probably not heard the last on this matter, and it would be interesting to see how lower courts will interpret this judgement, and more importantly, how they will apply it to the various fact patterns in cases brought before them in future.

The factual and economic analysis seems to be the underlying methodology, for both interpreting the PE article and determining the profits to be attributed to the PE. The analysis would help one to understand the economic substance of the transactions and would thus pave the way for attributing equitable economic profit to that economic substance.

This case could provide guidance to the OECD and other nations in developing principles of tax treaty interpretation which have the flexibility to embrace new business models in an ever evolving economic world order. If the PE article or in fact income tax treaties are to have relevance and meaning in todays changing global economics, their must be a fair and equitable distribution of revenue to both the residence and source state. Otherwise, like all rigid and indifferent behaviour, treaties may lose all relevance and be consigned to the library racks to gather dust. It is most likely time for all nations to develop principles that are common, and therefore necessarily equitable, if there is in fact a desire to reign in expansive interpretations which nations may employ to garner more tax revenue, and endanger the very philosophy on which the treaties are founded (namely the equitable sharing of taxes and the avoidance of double taxation).

It most likely is also time for the OECD to recognize the value contributed to the complete commercial process by the source states in the earning of profit by enterprises in the residence state. This recognition would probably allow the free play of economics to attribute an arms length profit to the enterprises of both the states, based on the economic value contributed by the enterprises, and not based on "old world" traditional concepts which have no relevance in the economic reality of today.

It is also important to understand the nuances of the arms length standard, and not use it as a panacea for all ills, because when the arms length standard is applied in a transfer pricing scenario, its purpose is to test whether the related-party transactions reflect arms length behaviour and fall within a range of comparable scenarios, and thus has a distinctively defensive colour. However, when the same standard is applied in a PE scenario, the focus changes from a testing standard to a profit attribution standard, and thus it becomes a more exacting standard from the perspective of taxing the foreign enterprises income in the source state. In such a scenario, it would be necessary to attribute profit for the subtle differences in the economic profile of the PE as measured to comparable companies. Thus, additional risks and functions of the PE need to be further compensated. It is these subtle differences which may require international consensus if the arms length standard is to be globally acceptable in a PE context.

If the OECD and other bodies do not change with the times, the importance of income tax treaties may become lost in international tax jurisprudence, for the foundation and consensus among nations would be shaken. One is reminded of Thomas Carlyles words, "Today is not yesterday We ourselves change. How can our works and thoughts, if they are always to be the fittest, continue always the same? Change, indeed is painful, yet ever needful, and if memory has its force and worth, so also hope

The key aspects of the Supreme Court decision are as follows:

  • Determination of a FE. Where the activities of the associated enterprise and the subsidiary are intertwined and the associated enterprise participates in the economic activities of the subsidiary, the activities of the subsidiary are to be analysed to determinewhether there is a fixed-place PE.
  • Attribution of profits to a FE. If a non-resident compensates its India subsidiary (which is also a PE) in line with the arms length standard, no further profits are attributable in India. Service charges payable to the service provider must fully represent the value of the profits attributable to its services.
  • Basis of the armc length price. First, ascertain whether the income and expense (cost) allocation of or to the subsidiary is at arms length. The arms length price is to be determined after taking into consideration all the risk-taking functions of the multinational enterprise (PE).

To return to the first part of the article click here.

Footnotes

12. Emphasis added.

13. Product ID 143149.2005; www.ato.gov.au.

14. FR 2001 / 11, (emphasis added).

15. 108 TTJ 445.

16. See 4.1.2.

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
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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