United States: The Economic Substance Doctrine: A U.S. Anti-Abuse Rule

Last Updated: September 29 2017
Article by Neha Rastogi, Alev Fanny Karaman and Stanley C. Ruchelman


Major corporate transactions typically reflect at least two separate elements. One is the business arrangement agreed to by the parties. The other is tax planning that is designed to minimize taxes while allowing the business arrangement to be consummated. In order to strike the appropriate balance, advisors must consider the potential impact of the economic substance doctrine. This doctrine constitutes a major tool for the I.R.S. to counter tax abusive transactions, because a transaction that has no economic substance will not be respected for income tax purposes in the U.S.

When the tax plan follows the business plan, taxpayers have wide latitude to choose a structure that reduces or defers tax for the seller. A simple example is that a taxpayer may choose to pursue a tax-free reorganization as the form of the transaction rather than a taxable sale of assets. At times however, the tax planning may go beyond the business deal or the underlying transaction may have no purpose other than a reduction of taxes. See, for example, ACM Partnership v. Commr.1 and related cases.2 Each involved the creation of an arrangement to produce losses for a U.S. taxpayer in order for it to reduce an equivalent amount of gains from an unrelated transaction, and each was created by financial engineers at a large financial institution. In such cases, the courts and the I.R.S. have imposed limits on tax planning when a tax reduction turned out to be the sole driver for a transaction.


The economic substance doctrine is a common-law creation that has been part of U.S. tax law for over 85 years.

Its origins can be traced to Gregory v. Helvering,3 in which the Supreme Court recognized a taxpayer's right to minimize their tax exposure as long as Congress intended those tax benefits.4

The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otheraxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted. * * * But the question for determination is whether what was done, apart from the tax motive, was the thing which the statute intended.

In the case, the taxpayer was the owner of all the stock of Corporation A, which held appreciated shares of Corporation B. The taxpayer wanted to sell the Corporation B shares at favorable capital gains tax rates. She therefore formed Corporation C, which acquired from Corporation A all the shares it owned in Corporation B in a tax-free reorganization. Corporation C was immediately liquidated and distributed the Corporation B shares to the taxpayer. Under the law in effect at the time, the liquidation of Corporation C was a tax-free event, much like the reorganization by which the Corporation B shares were acquired. All steps required by law were followed. The question was whether the reorganization should be ignored for tax purposes because the taxpayer never intended for Corporation C to continue in business. The Supreme Court answered in the negative and treated the taxpayer as if she received a taxable dividend from Corporation A, taxed as ordinary income.

Since this case, courts have sought to differentiate legitimate tax planning (i.e., that which has substance) from tax abusive structures, which are compliant with the letter of the law but contrary to its spirit. The principle has been invoked in different iterations and has evolved over the years:

  • The incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of the transaction and not mere formalism.5
  • Taxation is not so much concerned with refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property.6
  • A mere transfer in form, without substance, may be disregarded for tax purposes.7
  • A given result at the end of a straight path is not made a different result because reached by following a devious path.8
  • Where a taxpayer embarks on a series of transactions that are in substance a single, unitary, or indivisible transaction, the courts have disregarded the intermediary steps and have given credence only to the completed transaction.9
  • Transactions that are challenged as intermediary steps of an integrated transaction are disregarded when found to be so interdependent that the legal relations created by one transaction would have been fruitless without the completion of the series.10
  • The doctrine of economic substance becomes applicable, and a judicial remedy is warranted, where a taxpayer seeks to claim tax benefits, unintended by Congress, by means of transactions that serve no economic purpose other than tax savings.
  • Whether we respect a taxpayer's characterization of a transaction depends upon whether the characterization represents and is supported by a bona fide transaction with economic substance, compelled or encouraged by business or regulatory realities, and not shaped solely or primarily by tax avoidance features that have meaningless labels attached.11

At times, the economic substance doctrine has been used in conjunction with the business purpose doctrine. The latter, a subjective doctrine, entails analyzing the purpose of the transaction to determine whether the taxpayer intended the transaction to serve some useful non-tax purpose.12

Some degree of uncertainty arose through different applications of the economic substance doctrine by various courts. One of the most cited inconsistencies was that certain courts would examine both the economic substance and the business purpose of a transaction in order to determine a given transaction's economic substance (the "conjunctive test"), while other courts determined that the presence of either economic substance or business purpose was enough in reaching a conclusion (the "disjunctive test").

This uncertainty and lack of uniformity led to the codification of the economic substance doctrine in 2010.


The standards by which the economic substance doctrine is applied were clarified e §7701(o). Thus, the term "economic substance doctrine" is defined as the common law doctrine under which income tax benefits with respect to a transaction are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic substance or lacks a business purpose.

In determining whether a given transaction has economic substance, Code §7701(o) continues to rely on case law. In determining whether a transaction meets the economic substance doctrine, the following points must be considered:13

  • The economic substance doctrine must be relevant to the transaction.
  • Additionally, the following conjunctive two-prong test must be met:
    • The transaction changes the taxpayer's economic position in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) (the "economic substance test").
    • The taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into the transaction (the "business purpose test").

In determining whether the taxpayer meets the conjunctive two-prong test, the transaction's potential for profit is taken into account only if the expected pre-tax profits substantially exceed the expected net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected (the "profit potential test").14 For the purpose of computing profit potential, fees and other transaction expenses are to be taken into account as expenses in determining pre-tax profit. In addition, the I.R.S. is authorized to adopt regulations under which foreign taxes will be treated as expenses in determining pre-tax profit in appropriate cases. Note that factors other than profit potential may demonstrate that a transaction results in a meaningful change in the taxpayer's economic position or that the taxpayer has a substantial non-Federal tax purpose for entering into such transaction. The provision does not require or establish a specified minimum return that will satisfy the profit potential test.

Certain benefits that stem from reducing Federal taxable income can no longer be used as a business purpose. Thus, for example, reductions in state or local income taxes – which are typically counted as deductions when computing taxable income for Federal purposes – are treated in the same manner as a reduction in Federal income taxes if the transaction at issue affects the computation of taxable income for Federal tax purposes in addition to state tax purposes. In addition, entering into a transaction to achieve a financial accounting benefit will not be treated as a valid business purpose for entering into the transaction if the origin of the financial accounting benefit is a reduction of Federal income tax.

The provision does not alter the tax treatment of certain basic business transactions that, under longstanding judicial and administrative practice, are respected merely because the choice between meaningful economic alternatives is largely or entirely based on comparative tax advantages.15 Among these basic decisions are

  • the choice between capitalizing a business enterprise with debt or equity,
  • the choice between foreign corporations and domestic corporations,
  • the treatment of a transaction or series of transactions as a corporate organization or reorganization, and
  • the ability to respect a transaction between related parties, provided that the arm's length standard of Code §482 is satisfied.

Nonetheless, Code §7701(o) does not alter a court's ability to aggregate, disaggregate, or otherwise recharacterize a transaction when applying the economic substance doctrine. Thus, the court decisions, referenced above, regarding economic substance continue as valid law.


Application of the Conjunctive Test

In applying the conjunctive two-prong test, the I.R.S. will rely on relevant case law under the common-law economic substance doctrine and the business purpose doctrine.16 In this regard, the I.R.S. will rely on pre-codification authorities and post-codification authorities.17 The I.R.S. will not issue general administrative guidance regarding the types of transactions to which the economic substance doctrine applies or does not apply,18 or issue private letter rulings or determination letters on whether a transaction meets the requirements of Code §7701(o).19

Definition of "Transaction"

As explained earlier, the economic substance doctrine applies to a transaction or a series of transactions. In Notice 2014-58, the I.R.S. refers to Treas. Reg. §1.60114(b)(1) to define a "transaction." Generally, the term includes all the factual elements relevant to the expected tax treatment of any investment, entity, plan, or arrangement. It also includes any or all of the steps that are carried out as part of a plan. Facts and circumstances determine whether a plan's steps are aggregated or disaggregated when defining a transaction.

Generally, all steps are taken into consideration (i.e., an aggregated approach is applied) when all such steps are interconnected with a single objective. However, when certain steps are taken for tax purposes only, such steps may be isolated and a disaggregated approach may be applied. Notice 2014-58 provided the following disaggregated approach example:

If transfers of multiple assets and liabilities occur and the transfer of a specific asset or assumption of a specific liability was tax-motivated and unnecessary to accomplish a non-tax objective, then the economic substance doctrine may be applied solely to the transfer or assumption of that specific asset or liability. Separable activities may take many forms including, for example, the use of an intermediary employed for tax benefits and whose actions or involvement was unnecessary to accomplish an overarching non-tax objective. These situations are merely examples intended to illustrate the potential application of the disaggregation approach and are not exhaustive or comprehensive.

Analysis of Relevancy

In Notice 2010-62, the I.R.S. provided guidance as to how it would determine relevancy of the economic substance doctrine to a particular transaction. It stated, in relevant part, that:

The IRS will continue to analyze when the economic substance doctrine will apply in the same fashion as it did prior to the enactment of section 7701(o). If authorities, prior to the enactment of section 7701(o), provided that the economic substance doctrine was not relevant to whether certain tax benefits are allowable, the IRS will continue to take the position that the economic substance doctrine is not relevant to whether those tax benefits are allowable.

The I.R.S. will not issue private letter rulings or determination letters on the issue of relevancy. As a result, the transactions listed in the non-exhaustive list provided in the Technical Explanation to the 2010 Act constitutes the only "angel list" regarding the economic substance doctrine. Aside from that, Notice 2014-58 states that the determination of relevancy requires a factual, case-by-case analysis.


When a taxpayer enters into a transaction that does not meet the economic substance standard and the transaction reduces tax, the portion of the taxpayer's reduction in tax that is attributable to the transaction is subject to a 40% penalty. If the transaction is disclosed in the tax return, the penalty is reduced to 20%. Disclosure is effected on Form 8275, Disclosure Statement.20 The penalty does not apply to any portion of an underpayment on which a fraud penalty is imposed.21

The penalty is a strict liability penalty (i.e., the taxpayer cannot benefit from a reasonable cause exception).22 Because there is no reasonable cause defense available to taxpayers, any proposal to impose a Code §6662(b)(6) penalty at the examination level must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Director of Field Operations ("D.F.O.").23

The I.R.S. Large Business and International ("LB&I") Division has issued internal guidelines for determining when it is appropriate to apply the codified economic substance doctrine. While the Treasury Department has cautioned taxpayers not to rely too heavily on these guidelines, examiners are instructed to carry out the following four-step inquiry prior to asking a D.F.O. to assert the penalty:

  • First, an examiner should evaluate whether the circumstances in the case are those under which application of the economic substance doctrine to a transaction is likely not appropriate.
  • Second, an examiner should evaluate whether the circumstances in the case are those under which application of the doctrine to the transaction may be appropriate.
  • Third, if an examiner determines that the application of the doctrine may be appropriate, the examiner must make a series of inquiries, provided in the guidance, before seeking approval to apply the doctrine.
  • Fourth, if an examiner and his or her manager and territory manager determine that application of the economic substance doctrine is merited, guidance is provided on how to request D.F.O. approval.

The LB&I guidelines provide examples for every step. These examples are relevant not only for purposes of the penalty regime but also with respect to I.R.S. application of the economic substance doctrine. For example, transactions to which the application of the economic substance doctrine is generally not appropriate include the following ones:

  • The transaction is not promoted/developed/administered by a tax department or outside advisors.
  • The transaction is not highly structured.
  • The transaction contains no unnecessary steps.
  • The transaction generates targeted tax incentives that are consistent with Congressional intent in providing the incentives.
  • The transaction is at arm's length with unrelated third parties.
  • The transaction creates a meaningful economic change on a present value basis (pre-tax).
  • The taxpayer's potential for gain or loss is not artificially limited.
  • The transaction does not accelerate a loss or duplicate a deduction.
  • The transaction does not generate a deduction that is not matched by an equivalent economic loss or expense (including artificial creation or increase in basis of an asset).
  • The taxpayer does not hold offsetting positions that largely reduce or eliminate the economic risk of the transaction.
  • The transaction does not involve a tax-indifferent counterparty that recognizes substantial income.
  • The transaction does not result in the separation of income recognition from a related deduction either between different taxpayers or between the same taxpayer in different tax years.
  1. The transaction has credible business purpose apart from federal tax benefits.
  2. The transaction has meaningful potential for profit apart from tax benefits.
  3. The transaction has significant risk of loss.
  4. The tax benefit is not artificially generated by the transaction.
  5. The transaction is not pre-packaged.
  6. The transaction is not outside the taxpayer's ordinary business operations.

In the LB&I guidelines, the I.R.S. refers to the four transactions that are not deemed relevant by the Technical Explanation to the 2010 Act, by stating that "it is likely not appropriate to raise the economic substance doctrine if the transaction being considered is related to" these transactions.


While the economic substance doctrine has certainly been introduced into the Code by Code §7701(o), it has not been entirely codified. It is a constantly evolving concept and one that makes abusive tax planning extremely costly through the applicable penalty regime. The likelihood of disclosure of a transaction without economic substance will likely be low for taxpayers that are neither audited under U.S. G.A.A.P. nor subject to analysis by the auditors in accordance with FIN 48, which deals with uncertain tax positions. Without the overview provided in an audit of financial statements under U.S. G.A.A.P., taxpayers may not have a system to report and disclose the transaction. In comparison, if a U.S. G.A.A.P. audit is performed and a reserve is taken with regard to an uncertain tax position, Schedule UTP must be filed with the tax return for the year in which the reserve is established and the taxpayer's assets exceed the $10 million threshold provided in the instructions.


1 TC Memo. 1997-115, affd. 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998).

2 ASA Inversterings Partnership v..Commr., T.C. Memo. 1998-305 affd, 201 F3d 505 (DC Cir. 2000); Boca Investerings Partnership v. U.S., 314 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2003), revg. 167 F Supp 2d 298 (D.D.C. 2001); and Saba Partnership v. Commr. 273 F.3d 1135 (D.C. Cir 2001).

3 293 US 465 (1935).

4 Citing U.S. v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 506; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625, 630.

5 Commr. v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 334 (1945).

6 Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930); see also Commr. v. P. G. Lake, Inc., 356 U.S. 260 (1958); Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 (1940); Griffiths v. Commr., 308 U.S. 355 (1939); Sachs v. Commr., 277 F. 2d 879, 882-883 (8th Cir. 1960), affirming 32 T.C. 815 (1959).

7 Commr. v. P. G. Lake, Inc., supra; Commr. v. Court Holding Co., supra; Commr. v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948) Helvering v. Clifford, supra; Corliss v. Bowers, supra; Richardson v. Smith, 102 F. 2d 697 (2nd Cir. 1939); Howard Cook v. Commr, 5 T.C. 908 (1945); J. L. McInerney v. Commr., 29 B.T.A. 1 (1933), affd. 82 F. 2d 665 (6th Cir. 1936).

8 Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302 U.S. 609, 613 (1938).

9 Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Tomlinson, 399 F. 2d 652, 654 (5th Cir. 1968); May Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 200 F. 2d 852 (8th Cir. 1953); Whitney Corporation v. Commr., 105 F. 2d 438 (8th Cir. 1939), affirming 38 B.T.A. 224 (1938); Commr. v. Ashland Oil & R. Co., 99 F. 2d 588 (6th Cir. 1938), reversing sub nom. Swiss Oil Corporation v. Commr., 32 B.T.A. 777 (1935), certiorari denied 306 U.S. 661 (1939); Kuper v. Commr., 61 T.C. 624 (1974); Kimbell-Diamond Milling Co. v. Commr., 14 T.C. 74 (1950), affirmed per curiam 187 F. 2d 718 (5th Cir. 1951), certiorari denied 342 U.S. 827 (1951).

10 American Bantam Car Co. v. Commr., 11 T.C. 397, 405 (1948), affd 177 F. 2d 513 (3rd Cir, 1949), certiorari denied 339 U.S. 920 (1950); see Scientific Instrument Co. v. Commr., 17 T.C. 1253 (1952), affd per curiam 202 F. 2d 155 (6th Cir., 1953).

11 Frank Lyon Co. v. U.S., supra at 583-584; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commr., supra; Nicole Rose Corp. v. Commr., 117 T.C. 328 (2001), affd 320 F3d 282 (2nd Cir. 2002).

12 Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the "Reconciliation Act of 2010," as amended, in Combination with the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," JCX-18-10, March 21, 2010, p. 143. Herein, referred to as the "Technical Explanation to the 2010 Act."

13 Code §§7701(o)(1) and 7701(o)(5)(D).

14 Code §7701(o)(2)(A).

15 Technical Explanation to the 2010 Act, JCX-18-10, p. 152.

16 Notice 2010-62. Notice 2010-62 was issued by the I.R.S. to provide interim guidance regarding the codification of the economic substance doctrine and related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

17 Notice 2010-62, B.

18 Id.

19 Notice 2010-62, Effect on Other Documents.

20 Code §6662(b)(6).

21 Code §6664(b).

22 Code §6664(c)(2).

23 LB&I, Codification of Economic Substance Doctrine and Related Penalties, LMSB-20-0910-024, September 14, 2010. This directive is effective for transactions entered into on or after March 31, 2010.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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