United States: MoFo New York Tax Insights - Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2013


By Hollis L. Hyans

In Matter of Knowledge Learning Corporation and Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc., DTA Nos. 823962 & 823963 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., June 27, 2013), a New York State Administrative Law Judge held that, because the companies did not establish they had substantial intercorporate transactions, they could not file combined returns, and that an inquiry into distortion that might arise on separate returns was "not the proper analysis" after the statute was amended in 2007. While the conclusion regarding lack of substantial intercorporate transactions was very fact-based, and arose in substantial part from the judge's concern about the absence of documentary evidence to support oral testimony, the second conclusion – that distortion is not the proper analysis – is not supported by the Department's own regulations and pronouncements.

Facts. Knowledge Learning Centers ("KLC") operates children's learning centers and after-school day care programs. In 2005, it acquired Kindercare Learning Center ("Kindercare"), which operated a similar business. Beginning with its tax year ended December 29, 2007 (the "2007 tax year"), KLC filed a New York State combined report including Kindercare, as well as other affiliates. For the years ended December 31, 2005, and December 30, 2006, KLC and Kindercare, both New York taxpayers, had filed separate returns.

On audit, the Department of Taxation and Finance questioned whether the companies met the requirements for filing a combined report. In response to the Department's information request, KLC advised that there were no formal intercompany agreements, and that all employees had been transferred to KLC. It provided a description of intercompany cash transactions, indicating that all cash balances of Kindercare were swept to KLC's account and all payments were made by KLC. KLC also provided voluminous accounting spreadsheets, showing more than 1.8 million lines of activity posted to intercompany accounts, including evidence of payments made by KLC on behalf of Kindercare. After review of the records, the Department concluded that KLC was merely paying Kindercare's expenses with Kindercare's own cash, so that substantial intercorporate transactions did not exist.

During the 2007 tax year, KLC recognized a $57.6 million loss, while Kindercare had income of over $109 million. On the combined return, KLC's loss was used to partially offset Kindercare's income.

Evidence presented at the hearing.KLC argued that substantial intercorporate transactions existed. In addition to the accounting spreadsheets, KLC presented testimony of three witnesses, two of whom were from the company's tax department. Each testified that all employees of Kindercare, as well as of other related companies, had been transferred to KLC in 2005. No documents actually effecting or evidencing the transfer were introduced, although KLC presented a memo dated November 14, 2005, with no named addressee, discussing "the growth of KLC and what benefits are expected." There was also testimony that KLC had adopted a common policy manual, code of ethics, employee handbook and employee benefits handbook applicable to all affiliates, and that almost all of the legacy learning centers were converted to the Kindercare brand as a result of a study done in September 2005.

Legal Standard.Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2007, New York's statute on combined reporting was amended to provide that a combined report is required whenever the ownership requirement is met, and there are substantial intercorporate transactions among the related entities. Before the amendment, the presence of substantial intercorporate transactions gave rise to a presumption that separate reporting did not accurately portray the taxpayer's income, but that presumption could be rebutted by a showing that the transactions were conducted on an arm's length basis.

The amended statute still provides that, in the absence of substantial intercorporate transactions, a combined report is not required unless otherwise necessary to properly reflect tax liability. Tax Law § 211.4(a)(4). Consistent with the statute, technical advice issued by the Department shortly after the statute was amended further provided that the Department will "require or permit" combined reporting even where "substantial intercorporate transactions are absent if a combined report is necessary to properly reflect the taxpayer's Article 9-A tax liability because of intercompany transactions or some agreement, understanding, arrangement, or transaction." Combined Reporting for General Business Corporations and Insurance Corporations, TSB-M-08(2)C (N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation & Fin., Mar. 3, 2008).

ALJ Decision.The ALJ concluded that combination was not permitted, because KLC had failed to demonstrate the existence of substantial intercorporate transactions. First, the ALJ did not find sufficient evidence that all employees had in fact been transferred to KLC in 2005. Although she noted, in Finding of Fact 26 discussing the testimony of one witness, that the Vice President of Tax and Risk had been transferred to KLC in 2005, she found that the oral testimony of the witnesses was insufficient to establish that all employees were so transferred. The ALJ held that KLC and Kindercare "cannot meet their burden of proof on this issue by relying on the testimony of their witnesses," and that the "lack of documents effecting such transfer...weighed heavily against petitioners...." She also agreed with the Department's argument that the accounting spreadsheets merely showed that KLC was paying Kindercare's expenses using Kindercare's own cash, which had been swept to a KLC concentration account.

The ALJ also noted, citing cases such as Matter of The Sherwin- Williams Co., 12 A.D. 3d 112 (3d Dep't 2004) and Matter of Talbots, Inc., DTA No. 820168 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Sept. 8, 2008), that valid business purpose and economic substance of transactions are relevant considerations, and that here, the duties, obligations and daily activities of the employees "did not change as a result of their being transferred to KLC."

Finally, the ALJ found that, while KLC and Kindercare had raised an "alternative argument" that combination was necessary to avoid distortion, "distortion is not the proper analysis in light of the 2007 statutory amendment," and she therefore gave no further consideration to the distortion argument.

Additional Insights

This is the first decision issued by the Division of Tax Appeals interpreting the post-2007 combination statute, and it leaves many questions unanswered. The companies appear to have been arguing, in part, that all employees were paid by KLC, while performing services that benefitted not only KLC but Kindercare and other affiliates. If so, that would likely explain why KLC has a large loss, and Kindercare – which was not bearing the proper expenses actually incurred on its behalf – had significant income, and certainly seems relevant to the question of whether combined reports should be permitted.

The determination does not reveal what other evidence, if any, was introduced about the expenses of KLC and Kindercare, nor about other areas that are usually significant in combined reporting cases, such as borrowing and any guarantees thereof, common management and direction, economies of scale, centralized management, and a flow of value. Whether or not these facts established substantial intercorporate transactions, they certainly seem relevant to a determination of whether the taxpayers' income is accurately portrayed on separate returns, or whether distortion exists.

Similarly, the determination provides very little description of why the economic substance and business purpose doctrines were referenced. In the cases cited by the ALJ, the Department had argued successfully that affiliates were established without any valid business purpose, and that they had no economic substance, so they could be forcibly combined regardless of the pricing of intercompany transactions. It is not clear how lack of separate business purpose for separate entities, or lack of substance in an entity, supports separate reporting, and the record as recited contains no evidence that the transfer of employees in 2005, assuming it occurred, was done to allow combined reporting rather than for normal business reasons after an acquisition.

The ALJ's conclusion that distortion is not the proper analysis does not appear to be supported by the Department's own TSB-M, which clearly states that combination can be permitted even if substantial intercorporate transactions do not exist. That same standard has been explicitly incorporated in the Department's regulations issued in January 2013, which state that, "[w]here the capital stock requirement is met and substantial intercorporate transactions are absent, a combined report covering corporations engaged in a unitary business may be required or permitted if the Commissioner deems such a report necessary, because of inter-company transactions or some agreement, understanding, arrangement, or transaction, in order to properly reflect the tax liability...." 20 NYCRR § 6-2.1(b). While the regulations are formally effective only for years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, they are interpreting the exact same statute in effect since 2007, and appear entirely consistent with the Department's interpretation of that statute on audit over the past six years.

An extension of time to appeal to the Tax Appeals Tribunal has been granted, so further clarification is likely to be provided by an eventual Tribunal decision.


By Irwin M. Slomka

In 2010, the New York State Legislature adopted a temporary tax credit deferral in light of the State's budget crisis at the time. Under that legislation, businesses and individuals claiming various business credits (such as the investment tax credit and Brownfields tax credit) were subject to a two year deferral for credits arising in tax years beginning between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012, where the total credits for the year exceeded $2 million. The deferred amounts were then phased in over a three year period beginning in 2013. Now, an Albany County Supreme Court judge has upheld that deferral, rejecting a taxpayer's constitutional challenge. Empire Gen Holdings, Inc., v. State of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 23213 (June 25, 2013).

In 2004, Empire Holdings ("Empire") and BASF Corp. entered into a Brownfield Site Cleanup Agreement with New York State, in which Empire agreed to remediate polluted property in the City of Rensselaer in exchange for tax credits. After performing the cleanup and obtaining certification, Empire built an electricity generating plant on the property, placing it in service in September 2010. Under the Brownfields tax credit program, Empire was entitled to an $87 million tax credit for the redevelopment project.

As a result of the tax credit deferral legislation − which became effective in August 2010 − Empire's 2010 tax credit was reduced to $1.6 million, with the balance deferred to future years. Empire brought a declaratory judgment action, challenging the deferral on several constitutional grounds. First, it claimed that the law resulted in an unconstitutional "taking" of a vested property right. However, the judge concluded that Empire had no vested property right in the tax credit, since the credit did not "vest" until the plant was placed in service, which was a month after the deferral legislation went into effect. The judge also rejected Empire's claim that the deferral was a Contracts Clause violation, holding that there is no contractual right preventing the deferral of a tax credit. Empire also raised an Equal Protection argument, on the grounds that the deferral applied to the Brownfields credit, but not to the film production credit. This too was rejected by the court, which noted that Brownfields developers and film producers are not similarly-situated groups, and that Empire had failed to show the lack of a rational basis for the distinction.

Additional Insights

Although not addressed in the judge's decision, the fact that the tax credits were temporarily deferred, rather than completely eliminated, may have had a bearing on the outcome of the case. Interestingly, the judge's decision regarding the taxpayer's Due Process argument suggests that if the property had been placed in service a month earlier − before the deferral legislation went into effect − Empire would have had a "vested property right" in the tax credit.


By Irwin M. Slomka

Undeterred by its recent loss at the Appellate Division on the same issue involving a different taxpayer, the New York City Department of Finance continues to pursue the imposition of real property transfer tax ("RPTT") when a residential housing cooperative terminates its participation in the Mitchell-Lama Housing Program. A New York City Administrative Law Judge has now rejected another attempt by the Department to impose the tax, holding that the dissolution and reconstitution of the cooperative involved neither a conveyance of real property by deed nor a taxable transfer of an economic interest in real property. Matter of Trump Vill. Section 4, Inc., TAT(H) 10-34(RP) (N.Y.C. Tax App. Trib. Admin, Law Judge Div., July 11, 2013).

Background.In the November 2012 issue of New York Tax Insights, we reported on a Second Department decision holding that a residential housing cooperative corporation's termination of its participation in the Mitchell-Lama program by "voluntarily dissolving" under the Private Housing Finance Law ("PHFL"), and "reconstituting" itself as a corporation under the Business Corporation Law, did not result in a transfer of real property within the meaning of the RPTT law and was not subject to the tax. Trump Vill. Section 3, Inc. v. City of New York, 100 A.D.3d 170 (2d Dep't, 2012).

The current case involved a different Trump Village cooperative ("Trump Village 4"), but substantially similar facts. Unlike the earlier Appellate Division case, where the taxpayer bypassed the City Tribunal and brought a summary judgment action in the New York courts, this case was heard before an ALJ. Briefly, Trump Village 4 is a residential housing cooperative complex located in Brooklyn, New York. Formed in 1961 as a Mitchell- Lama cooperative under the PHFL, it received City property tax benefits and low-cost financing. Under that program, tenant-shareholders who moved out could only sell their shares back to the cooperative at fixed (and usually below-market) prices.

The shareholders of Trump Village 4 decided to withdraw from the Mitchell-Lama program. This plan was carried out through a plan of voluntary dissolution and reconstitution in 2007, under which the corporation's certificate of incorporation was amended to, among other things, remove all references to the PHFL. Trump Village 4 retained the same federal employer identification number that it had before reconstituting. No new deed of the real property was ever made or recorded.

In 2010, the Department assessed $12 million in tax, penalty and interest against Trump Village 4, asserting that the dissolution and reconstitution amounted to a conveyance of real property. The Department estimated the taxable consideration at $313 million, based on the sales prices of the co-op apartments after the reconstitution. At the administrative hearings, both sides introduced evidence and expert testimony on valuation of the alleged consideration.

As it did in the earlier case, the Department claimed that the dissolution and reconstitution resulted in the formation of a new corporation, and thus the amended certificate of incorporation was in effect a "deed" subject to RPTT. However, in this case, the Department raised a new issue, possibly after losing at the Appellate Division in Trump Vill. Section 3. It claimed that even if there was no taxable "deed," the transaction should be deemed a taxable transfer of an "economic interest" in real property. Moreover, even though the tenant-shareholders remained the same before and after the transaction, the Department argued that the transaction did not qualify as an exempt "mere change in form," because the stock ownership changed significantly, resulting in a change in "beneficial ownership."

ALJ determination.The ALJ ruled in favor of the taxpayer on both issues. The ALJ held that the Appellate Division decision in Trump Vill. Section 3 not only precluded a finding that there was a transfer of real property by deed, but that its rationale also compelled a conclusion that there was no transfer of an economic interest in real property. Since the same legal entity existed, with the same shareholders, both before and after the reconstitution, there was no transfer of an economic interest.

The ALJ also found that even if there was a transfer of an economic interest, the transfer would qualify for exemption as a "mere change in form," since there was no change in beneficial ownership in the cooperative corporation, despite the increased value of the stock after the reconstitution. The ALJ saw no reason to apply a decision under the Martin Act, in which the Court of Appeals held that the dissolution-reconstitution of a Mitchell-Lama cooperative involved the "offering or sale" of securities. East Midtown Housing Co., Inc. v. Cuomo, 20 N.Y.3d 161 (2012). According to the ALJ, the purpose of the Martin Act, to protect the public from fraud, is inapplicable to the RPTT.

Additional Insights

Like the earlier Appellate Division decision in Trump Village Section 3 (which we understand the Department is seeking leave to appeal), this decision correctly concludes that the mere act of amending a certificate of incorporation for the same legal entity is not a "transfer" or "conveyance" of real property. This decision goes further, however, because it addresses the Department's alternative argument that an economic interest in real property was transferred, although it does not identify precisely what the claimed "economic interest" was. The Department's position in this case — that there was a change in beneficial ownership because of the increased value of the owners' shares after leaving the Mitchell-Lama program — would be a significant departure from its prior interpretations of the "mere change in form" exemption, and was also rightly rejected.

It is anticipated that the Department will pursue its position by appealing to the City Tribunal.


Department Issues Tax Bulletin on Bulk Sales Procedures

The Department of Taxation and Finance has issued a Tax Bulletin setting out the special procedures to be followed when a bulk sale transaction takes place in order to protect the purchaser from liability for the seller's unpaid sales or use taxes. Tax Bulletin ST-70, "Bulk Sales," TB-ST-70 (N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation & Fin., June 24, 2013). Among the helpful subjects covered are examples of bulk sale transactions, the prescribed forms that should be used by the purchaser, and a discussion of the seller's obligations in the case of a bulk sale.

Guidance Issued for Businesses that Contract with New York State

A new Tax Bulletin issued by the Department of Taxation and Finance explains the general rules for the required certification of contractors (including their affiliates and subcontractors) that contract with New York State. Tax Bulletin, "Certification Requirements for Businesses that Contract with New York State," Sales and Use Tax, TB-ST-118 (N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation & Fin., June 12, 2013). Tax Law § 5-a requires businesses that are awarded State contracts in certain instances to certify that they are registered to collect State and local sales tax on sales to in-State locations. That certification must be made using Form ST-220-TD (filed with the Department) and Form ST-220-CA (filed with the procuring agency).

Implementation Announced of Tax-Free Initiative: START-UP NY

Legislation enacted earlier this year provided for a new initiative offering tax abatements to new businesses in areas designed as "NYS Innovation Hot Spots," and agreement on implementing legislation has now been announced. Benefits are available to companies that either start a new business, relocate to New York from outside the State, or expand their existing businesses as long as they can demonstrate they are actually creating new jobs and not merely moving existing jobs. Businesses will need to align with an academic institution, and participating companies will not pay business/ corporate taxes, sales taxes or property taxes for 10 years, while their employees will pay no income taxes for five years and reduced taxes for a second five years. Press Release, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Announce Agreement on Start-Up NY Legislation That Will Implement Tax-Free NY Initiative (June 19, 2013).

Appeals Court Upholds MTA Payroll Tax as Constitutional

The Appellate Division has now reversed last year's decision by a trial court, and found that the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax Law, commonly known as the MTA Payroll Tax, was properly enacted and therefore constitutional. Mangano v. Silver, et al., 2013 NY Slip Op. 04783 (2d Dep't, June 26, 2013) The Appellate Division rejected the argument that the statute, which imposes a payroll tax on employers and self-employed individuals to raise funds for the improvement of commuter transportation in the New York City area, had been invalidly enacted without a "home rule" message. Such a message is not required when a special law serves a "substantial state concern," and the appeals court found that improvement of commuter mass transit in the New York City area has already been held to be "a matter of public interest, affecting not only the people of that city, but of the whole state," Matter of McAneny v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment of City of N.Y., 232 N.Y. 377, 393 (1922), so that no home rule message was required.

Sprint Nextel False Claims Act Case Survives Motion to Dismiss

On July 1, 2013, the State's Supreme Court, the trial court, rejected Sprint Nextel's motion to dismiss in its entirety the State's first whistleblower action filed under the 2010 version of New York's False Claims Act ("FCA"). Fin. Law §§ 189-194. The complaint charged that Sprint Nextel did not collect and remit the proper amount of sales tax on its wireless calling plans, that Sprint improperly excluded a portion of the revenue from monthly calling plans from the base on which tax was charged by allocating the monthly service fees between taxable and nontaxable components in an arbitrary manner, and that Sprint Nextel owed over $100 million in additional tax. Sprint Nextel had moved to dismiss all of the causes of action, arguing that its method of assessing tax by unbundling the monthly charge to exclude the amount attributable to nontaxable interstate telecommunications was supported by the plain language of the sales tax provisions, Tax Law § 1105(b), and by the federal Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act ("MTSA"). It also argued that applying the FCA to statements made before the effective date of the legislation extending the FCA to tax claims violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The trial court refused to dismiss the action in full. It noted, first, that for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court is required to accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true, and to afford the plaintiff – in this case, the Attorney General suing in the name of the people of the State of New York – the "benefit of every favorable inference." Under this standard, the court evaluated all of the facts alleged in the complaint and held that, if eventually found to be true, they could establish a violation of the FCA. The court also found that the civil penalties imposed under the FCA were not "sufficiently punitive in nature and effect" to give rise to the protection of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim raised in the complaint, since the court readily found that Sprint Nextel could not conspire with its own subsidiaries, and also held that claims under the Tax Law and the Executive Law were time-barred to the extent they applied to periods prior to March 31, 2008.

Sprint Nextel has filed an appeal of the decision with the Appellate Division.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
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

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.


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