United States: Recent Supreme Court Of Virginia Decisions Demonstrate The Urgent Need For New Tax Regulations

Last Updated: October 27 2015
Article by Craig D. Bell and J. Christian Tennant

The January 2015 Supreme Court of Virginia opinion in The Nielsen Company LLC v. County Board of Arlington County sent two important messages to state and local governments in Virginia. First, local governments should permit taxpayers to use an estimation methodology when determining a deduction for gross receipts taxed in other states for purposes of the business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax if it is impossible to determine the exact amount of the deduction. Second, the state government, specifically, the Virginia Department of Taxation (tax department) needs to reconsider its current policy of issuing guidelines and public documents instead of regulations in an effort to meaningfully promote taxpayer compliance and minimize tax controversy disputes.

Multi-State Businesses Must Deduct Gross Receipts Taxed By Other States

Since 2009, the Supreme Court of Virginia has delivered three very important opinions concerning the BPOL tax imposed by many Virginia local governments on the businesses operating within their boundaries. Each of these cases involves the proper method of calculating the BPOL tax owed by larger businesses and businesses that operate in multiple states. The Virginia General Assembly reformed the BPOL tax in 1996 to reign in local government officials' over-reaching interpretations of the tax and to provide uniformity on how the tax is imposed in different localities in Virginia.1 Despite the reformation of the BPOL tax, major issues regarding differing interpretations on the proper method of calculating the BPOL tax still exist for businesses that operate in multiple states. In connection with the 1996 reform, the tax department promulgated regulations concerning the BPOL tax, but has failed to update them since they were first promulgated in 2008.2 Because the BPOL regulations have not been updated, multi-state businesses continue to be forced to incur unnecessary costs relating to administrative and judicial disputes on core issues that should have been dealt with by new regulations.

The first two BPOL tax opinions from the Supreme Court of Virginia prevented local governments from taxing gross receipts not earned in the locality. In City of Lynchburg v. English Construction Company3, the Court determined that the City of Lynchburg had no authority to tax the gross receipts of a taxpayer earned in other localities where that taxpayer maintained a definite place of business. Then, the Court in Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County4 determined a multi-state financial service provider's receipts from an office located in a Virginia locality were not 100 percent attributable to the actions performed in the office when the loans originated in the Virginia office but were funded and serviced through offices outside of Virginia. While both of these cases involved different BPOL tax issues, the opinions correctly controlled the local government's power to tax.

Determining the BPOL Deduction for Gross Receipts Taxed in Other States

Unlike English Construction and Ford Motor Credit, the most recent dispute concerning the BPOL tax, The Nielsen Company LLC v. County Board of Arlington County5, could have been avoided had the tax department simply updated its regulations. The Nielsen case involved an appeal from the Circuit Court of Arlington County that rejected Nielsen's claim of a deduction for gross receipts taxed outside of Virginia for purposes of calculating the BPOL tax. 6 The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court's decision and allowed the deduction as calculated by Nielsen. 7

The dispute in this case involved the interpretation of a statute allowing businesses a deduction for gross receipts taxed in other states. Specifically, the calculation of the permissible deduction was at issue. Through publicly issued rulings, the Virginia Tax Commissioner (tax commissioner) provided his interpretation of how the deduction should be computed. This methodology was not contained in the BPOL tax regulations. In these rulings, the tax commissioner determined that BPOL taxpayers who use payroll apportionment to situs their taxable receipts should use the same apportionment factor to ascertain the proper amount of the deduction permitted by Virginia Code § 58.1-3732. 8

The dispute between Nielsen and Arlington over the deduction arose upon an audit by Arlington that resulted in assessment for underpaid BPOL tax issued to Nielsen. 9 Nielsen appealed the assessments back to Arlington and ultimately to the tax commissioner pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3703.1(A)(6)(a). 10 The tax commissioner issued his decision on the appeal in Public Document 12-146. 11 The tax commissioner determined that Arlington used an incorrect methodology to calculate the deduction, and instead permitted a payroll percentage methodology to be used. 12 The tax commissioner stated that the rationale behind this requirement is while this methodology provides an estimate, it results in a reasonable approximation of the deduction, is straightforward to administer, and can be applied uniformly. 13 In a ruling issued by the tax commissioner prior to Nielsen's ruling, he specifically articulated the method to calculate the deduction as follows:

1. Ascertain whether any employees at the Virginia definite place of business participated in interstate transactions by, for example, shipping goods to customers in other states, participating with employees in other offices in transactions, etc. If there has been no participation in interstate transactions, then there is no deduction. If there has been participation, then;

2. Ascertain whether any of this interstate participation can be tied to specific receipts. If so, then those receipts are deducted; however, if payroll apportionment had to be used to assign receipts to the definite place of business, then it is very unlikely that any of those apportioned receipts can be specifically linked to interstate transactions. If not, or if only some of the participation can be tied to specific receipts, then;

3. The payroll factor used for the Virginia definite place of business would be applied to the gross receipts assigned to definite places of business in states in which the taxpayer filed an income tax return. Note that payroll apportionment would probably be needed to assign receipts to definite places of business in other states. 14

Arlington filed suit challenging the tax commissioner's ruling arguing that "regardless of how the pool of taxable gross receipts was calculated under Code § 58.1-3703.1(A)(3), determining the deduction under Code § 58.1-3732(B)(2) requires the taxpayer to prove by manual accounting that the receipts attributable to business in a foreign jurisdiction where the taxpayer is subject to an income-based tax liability were actually captured in the pool of taxable gross receipts." 15 The circuit court ultimately ruled that usage of payroll apportionment for purposes of the deduction is "arbitrary and capricious" and that "[t]he taxpayer however, is certainly in a position to demonstrate by time sheets, travel expenses, budget, phone logs and other means how Virginia employees may have contributed to revenues generated out-of-state and therefore entitled to the deduction." 16

Entitlement to the deduction

Requiring Nielsen to calculate its exact deduction ignores the reality that if Nielsen were able to calculate its deduction, it would also be able to directly situs its gross receipts and not be required to use payroll apportionment for situsing purposes. Therefore, the circuit court's ruling that an exact determination was required was in error. Interestingly, Arlington never argued that Nielsen improperly used payroll apportionment to situs its receipts and stipulated that using payroll apportionment to situs receipts was proper for Nielsen. 17 So when the circuit court attempted to require Nielsen to calculate its deduction without using an apportionment formula, the circuit court effectively determined that Nielsen may not claim a deduction to which it was entitled and had been legislatively granted by the General Assembly. 18 The trial court's decision on this issue was contrary to the General Assembly's intent for the BPOL deduction statute.

The Supreme Court of Virginia overturned the circuit court on the basis that the tax commissioner's ruling was neither contrary to law, nor arbitrary and capricious. 19 However, the Supreme Court of Virginia did not state that the tax department's method for calculating the deduction was the method that should be used. After it was acknowledged that the Code of Virginia does not resolve the permissible methodology for calculating the deduction, the Court determined that the tax department's requirement of manual accounting, or payroll apportionment in the event that manual accounting is impossible to calculate the deduction, falls within the scope of accounting methodologies permitted by Virginia Code § 58.1-3732 which provides for the deduction for out-of-state receipts. 20 The Court concludes the tax department's methodology is not contrary to law. 21 The Court also held that the tax department's methodology was not arbitrary or capricious as it followed the statute's scheme for determining the situs of gross receipts when it is impossible or not practical to make such a determination for purposes of the tax. 22 Specifically, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated:

The use of an estimate methodology when determining a deduction, but only when it is impossible to determine the exact figures to calculate such a deduction, is neither "contrary to ... established rules of law" nor a mechanism permitting an assessment to be "founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason or fact" when that very same methodology is used to determine the initial tax to be imposed, but only when it is impractical or impossible to determine the exact figures to calculate such a tax. 23

On this basis, the case was remanded back to the circuit court to issue an order consistent with the opinion. 24

Litigation could have been avoided with updated tax regulations

The Supreme Court of Virginia in Nielsen addressed the issue of the deference or weight that must be given to the tax commissioner's rulings. The tax department has a long history of believing that its rulings should be deferred to and given great weight by the judiciary in its decisions. Virginia courts disagree with providing any such deference. The Court directly addressed this contention when it stated, "A court never defers to the Tax Commissioner's interpretation of a statute." 25 Great weight is only provided when a statute is obscure or its meaning doubtful. 26

If the tax department would like its interpretations to receive "great weight," the tax department should follow prior Court guidance:

For purposes of giving weight to the positions of administrative agencies, it does not matter whether an agency has been consistent in its rulings. This is because an agency's "prior rulings and policies themselves are not entitled to great weight, unless expressed in regulations." Chesapeake Hosp. Auth. v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 551, 560, 554 S.E.2d 55, 59 (2001). 27

The Court also recognized that the tax department's rulings are only accorded judicial notice and nothing more pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-203. 28 This subject begs the question of why the tax department will not promulgate regulations so multistate businesses have the necessary regulatory guidance to comply with Virginia's BPOL tax laws. Simply put, there would not have been an issue in dispute in the Nielsen case had the tax department simply promulgated a regulation instead of publishing its desired BPOL deduction methodology in a ruling that Virginia courts and Virginia taxpayers are not entitled to rely upon as precedent.

The Virginia Department of Taxation will not promulgate tax regulations

The issue of promulgating tax regulations in Virginia is contentious. Regulations interpreting tax statutes typically are more desirable than regulations in other areas of law because tax regulations provide answers and more certainty when trying to determine how tax statutes that frequently are in-artfully worded or are somewhat ambiguous apply to them. Both the Tax Policy Committee of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the Taxation Committee of the Virginia Bar Association have expressed their belief on numerous occasions to the tax commissioner that the tax department should put forth more of an effort promulgating new and updating existing tax regulations.

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much interest from the tax department to devote resources to this endeavor. Members of the Tax Policy Committee of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the Taxation Committee of the Virginia Bar Association first met with the tax commissioner and his senior staff approximately five years ago. During this meeting, it was expressed to the tax commissioner that the Chamber would assist the tax department in its efforts to restart the regulation process so tax compliance and certainty could be improved. Note that this is the odd situation where business representatives asked the government to write regulations.

The business community's pleas apparently fell on deaf ears. Subsequent meetings between the various business community stakeholders and the tax department leadership were equally unsuccessful even though the tax department recognized the importance and need for tax regulations in many areas of mutual interest. The tax department's inaction with tax regulations can also be observed on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website operated by the Virginia Department of Planning and the Budget. 29 The Town Hall website shows that the last activity for any chapter of the Virginia Administrative Code for which the tax department is responsible occurred in 2009. 30 Furthermore, the Town Hall website shows that the tax department has seventeen actions pending. 31 All seventeen actions were initiated by the tax department between late 2006 and early 2008. 32 None of the pending actions have advanced beyond the initial notice stage referred to as the NOIRA (Notice of Intended Regulatory Action). 33

Rulings and guidelines are not the answer

The tax department has all but abandoned issuing tax regulations. Instead, since 1980 the department has issued approximately 8,800 "public documents," an average of about 245 per year. These "public documents" consist of rulings of the tax commissioner on assessment appeals and refund requests, advisory opinions, and other bulletins and announcements. "Public documents" can cover all of the taxes administered by the tax department plus some local taxes. While it is notable that Virginia releases such documents publicly unlike many other states, such "public documents" are not precedential and receive no deference in a judicial setting.

The tax department last performed a major update of the tax regulations in 1985. In many cases when a new tax policy has been enunciated in a post-1985 public document, the tax regulations have not been updated. The tax regulations also have not been updated to reflect opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia. 34 Because the regulations have not been updated, Virginia taxpayers in need of more certainty on tax positions must hire advisors simply to comply with the commonwealth's tax laws. While that is good news for lawyers and CPAs who specialize in Virginia taxation, it is not necessarily financially good news for the taxpayers themselves. The tax department's own auditors must also negotiate the thousands of public documents issued by the tax department in an attempt to find the right tax policy when conducting audits of taxpayers. The tax department has begun to issue or release "guidelines" as an alternative to tax regulations. Guidelines are provided for in Virginia Code section 58.1-204(A)(4) by requiring the tax commissioner to publish guidelines that he believes "may be of interest to taxpayers and practitioners." 35 It is unclear if anyone asked the tax department to issue such guidelines as both the business community and the legal community has asked for regulations, not guidelines, which taxpayers, the tax imposing authorities, and the Virginia judiciary may rely upon.

The process for issuing guidelines in this manner is easier and less cumbersome. It is the view of the authors that what makes guidelines easier to issue is that there is nothing in the Virginia Code that establishes a procedure for how such guidelines are developed. When writing guidelines, the tax department tries to follow the comment periods provided for in the Administrative Process Act (APA) that are required for the promulgation of regulations. However, the tax department will abandon this practice when it deems it necessary. By writing guidelines completely within the tax department, reviews by other executive branch agencies and the Attorney General of Virginia that are required by the APA for the promulgation of regulations are avoided. The result is a simple statement by the tax department of what it believes to be its policy.

Recognizing the lack of review, the General Assembly chose to give guidelines no weight and solely afforded them judicial notice. 36 Knowing that guidelines receive no formal review outside of the tax department and receive no weight by the judicial system, how can tax lawyers and other tax practitioners advise clients to rely on them? Of all the different state agencies, the tax department probably has the most diect contact with Virginia citizens. Despite that, the tax department has not issued regulations under the APA and instead provides unreviewed policy through the use of guidelines that have no precedential value, thus leading to uncertainty, expense, and litigation that may otherwise be avoided.

Footnotes

1 Craig D. Bell and J. Christian Tennant, Is Your Client Overpaying BPOL Tax?, VIRGINIA LAWYER, Vol. 58/No. 3, (October 2009) at 24.

2 As a temporary measure, the tax department issued BPOL tax guidelines instead of regulations prior to 2008.

3 City of Lynchburg v. English Construction Company, Incorporated, et al., 277 Va. 574, 584; 675 S.E.2d 197, 202 (2009).

4 Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County, 281 Va. 321; 707 S.E.2d 311 (2011).

5 The Nielsen Company LLC v. County Board of Arlington County, 289 Va. 79, 767 S.E.2d 1 (2015).

6 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 86.

7 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 99.

8 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 95.

9 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 85.

10 Id.

11 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 86.

12 Id.

13 Ruling of the Virginia Tax Commissioner, Public Document (P.D.) 12-146 (August 31, 2012).

14 Ruling of the Virginia Tax Commissioner, P.D. 12- 88 (May 31, 2012).

15 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 94.

16 County Board of Arlington County, Virginia, et al. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Case No. CL12- 2872, Pg. 5 (County of Arlington Circuit Court, November 19, 2013).

17 Post-trial brief of the respondent at 8, County Board of Arlington County, Virginia, et al. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Case No. CL12-2872 (County of Arlington Circuit Court, November 19, 2013).

18 Post-trial brief of the respondent at 12-13, County Board of Arlington County, Virginia, et al. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Case No. CL12-2872 (County of Arlington Circuit Court, November 19, 2013).

19 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 99.

20 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 96.

21 Id.

22 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 97.

23 Id.

24 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 99.

25 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 89.

26 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 88 (citing Superior Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 202, 206, 136 S.E. 666, 667 (1927)).

27 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 89.

28 Nielsen, 289 Va. at 89 (citing Va. Code § 58.1- 205(3); Chesapeake Hosp., 262 Va. at 560, 554 S.E.2d at 59).

29 http://www.townhall.state.va.us/

30 https://www.townhall.virginia.gov/l/viewboard.cfm?boardid=75&display=chapters

31 https://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/NowInProgress.cfm

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 For example, sales tax regulations have not been updated to reflect a 2001 opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court in Chesapeake Hosp. Auth. v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 551, 560, 554 S.E.2d 55, 59 (2001).

35 Va. Code § 58.1-204(A)(4).

36 Va. Code § 58.1-205(3).

Previously published in Virginia Lawyer: October 2015, Vol. 64

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 Video
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.