Withholding Tax Clause in Service Agreement

When I was confronted with such a clause, I was of the opinion that the withholding tax was used to satisfy the income tax of the IP provider and that if he was not satisfied with it, he could claim it from the tax authorities. This was supported by the fact that most of the transactions I was involved in came from competitive purchases. A supplier of intellectual property who insists that the price of the withholding tax be “completed” effectively modifies his offer and runs the risk that, when his offer is re-evaluated, he will no longer be the best bidder and that he has just negotiated with a customer. I can see how, in other contexts, the “take tax authority” attitude might be less successful. To mitigate the effects of double taxation, most countries in the world have concluded bilateral double taxation agreements with most other countries in the world. The terms of these treaties vary, but over time, as they are regularly renewed, many are reformulated to conform to an OECD model. This will gradually eliminate some of the peculiarities of some treaties. For example, while many contracts allow a 100% exemption from property tax on the licensee`s territory if certain conditions are met, some of the contracts with Far Eastern countries have only granted 50% relief in the past. In the 1990s, IP Draughts helped a British biotech company that was hampered by the fact that the contract between the UK and Japan only allowed for 50% relief. IP Draughts understands that the recent UK-Japan agreement allows for a 100% exemption from withholding tax. In biotech licensing agreements (to take one of the aforementioned examples), IP Draughts has generally seen formulations such as the following: The above wording provides that the parties will try to avoid withholding taxes, but ultimately, if the licensee is required to deduct taxes, it may do so. This is a tax issue for the licensor and ultimately the risk in the above wording is borne by the licensors. Taxes can be interesting! This golden old man deals with an eternal problem of trade and design in licensing agreements – who runs the risk of raising taxes? Second, the presence or absence of the term does not depend entirely on who has the bargaining power, although it does matter.

Instead, the use of such a term seems to reflect practice in some industrial sectors. For example, IP Draughts often sees the term used in software supply contracts, but very rarely sees it in biotech licensing agreements. Where a deduction or withholding is required by law to be made on a payment under this [Agreement], the payer, except in respect of default interest referred to in [clause [insert clause [clause [insert clause [insert clause [insert clause number] of this [Agreement], shall pay to the beneficiary [at the same time as the payment in question] the additional amount resulting from such deduction or withholding [(and after taking in account any credit relating to it). Deduction or withholding tax)] to provide the beneficiary with the same amount to which he would have been entitled if such an obligation to deduct or withhold had not existed. In the unilateral example cited, it seems to me that the party who is obliged to exercise restraint can never fulfil the obligation. The amount to be paid in the amount of tax withheld is certainly itself subject to withholding tax, which requires an additional transfer, and so on to infinity. All amounts payable under this [Agreement] by or on behalf of one party (for the purposes of this clause 1 of the payers) to another party (the Recipient) will be payable free of charge and without any deduction or withholding, except as required by law. This term differs from some of the others in the series in several ways. First, it focuses on an intellectual property issue, or rather on an intellectual property tax issue – withholding tax. Some of the other terms in the series could be found in many types of trade agreements and are not specific to IP transactions. This withholding tax is commonly referred to as the withholding tax. If a withholding tax is levied on payments, the claimant increases the amounts paid to the customer so that the amount the customer receives after deduction of the withholding tax is the total amount the customer would have received if no source deduction or deduction had been made.

The origins of the doctrine often go back to John Locke`s Second Treatise of Government (1689), in which he referred to the “executive” and “legislative” powers as distinct. . it is perhaps too great a temptation for the human fragility that corresponds to the title of the agreement: Supply contract-RUSS BERRIE AND COMPANY, INC. MODIFICATION OF THE CONTROL SEPARATION PLAN Type of agreement: Contracting parties to the supply contract: RUSS BERRIE CO INC | Bachem, Inc., Document Date: 15/03/2004 Applicable law: New York It is important to point out that what is deducted is an initial payment of the licensor`s tax. Typically, property tax or corporate tax (the name varies by jurisdiction) is deducted. Thus, the licensee acts as an unpaid tax collector for taxes that have nothing to do with him. . The tax laws of many countries, including those of the United Kingdom, require that when intellectual property royalties are paid, the tax must be deducted by the payer (i.e. the licensee) from the amount of the royalty and paid to the tax authorities of the licensee`s country.

The net amount, less taxes, can then be paid to the licensor. .

Return to Top ▲Return to Top ▲