United States: MoFo New York Tax Insights, Vol 9, Issue 12

Last Updated: December 11 2018
Article by Hollis L. Hyans and Irwin M. Slomka

A SECOND APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NEW YORK'S STATUTORY RESIDENCY SCHEME

By Hollis L. Hyans

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, has upheld the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action brought by out-of-state domiciliaries challenging the constitutionality of New York's system for taxing the income of statutory residents. Chamberlain v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation & Fin., No. 525967, 2018 NY Slip Op. 07383 (3d Dep't, Nov. 1, 2018). The court agreed with a decision by the First Department in Edelman v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance, 162 A.D.3d 574 (1st Dep't, 2018), and found that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 135 S. Ct. 1787 (2015), does not affect the constitutionality of New York's statutory residency scheme.

Statutory Background. Under New York's personal income tax law, individuals who are domiciled outside New York may be taxed as "statutory residents" of New York if they maintain a permanent place of abode in New York and are present in New York for more than 183 days during a year. Tax Law § 605(b). While New York, like many states, provides a tax credit for income taxes paid by its residents to other states, the credit is only available where the taxes paid to the other state arise from income "derived" from (i.e., earned within) that other state. Tax Law § 620. The credit is generally not available for intangible or investment income, which is usually not treated as having been directly derived from any specific state.

Twenty years ago, the New York Court of Appeals (the State's highest court) upheld a constitutional challenge to New York's statutory residency scheme. Tamagni v. Tax Appeals Trib., 91 N.Y.2d 530 (1998). The plaintiffs in that case, who were domiciled in New Jersey and statutory residents of New York, asserted that the potential for multiple taxation inherent in New York's statutory residency scheme discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Tamagni court concluded that the dormant Commerce Clause was not applicable to the income taxation of state residents and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 266 (1989), for the proposition that, even if the dormant Commerce Clause was generally applicable, it would not apply to the plaintiffs because it does not "protect state residents from their own state taxes."

However, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wynne explicitly repudiated the statement in Goldberg that was relied on in Tamagni. In the Wynne decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Maryland's residency credit scheme, which allowed credits against a state- level tax for taxes paid to other states but not against a county-level tax, violated the Commerce Clause's "internal consistency" test, which requires a tax to be structured so that if every state were to impose an identical tax, no multiple taxation would result.

Chamberlain Case. Plaintiffs Richard Chamberlain and Martha Crum, a married couple domiciled in Connecticut, worked in New York City during 2009 through 2011. They filed joint Connecticut resident income tax returns and paid tax on their worldwide income, which included income from their sale of a business entity that did business in New York. They also filed joint New York Nonresident Income Tax Returns, based on wage income earned in New York. Their nonresident returns were audited by the Department of Taxation and Finance, which determined that they were statutory residents who should have filed New York resident income tax returns. The Department assessed tax of over $2.7 million on their intangible income, derived from interest, dividends and capital gains, which was calculated without any credits for the taxes Mr. Chamberlain and Ms. Crum had paid to the State of Connecticut. The couple paid the disputed amount and filed an action in the Supreme Court, Albany County, seeking a declaratory judgment that New York's taxation of statutory residents violates the Commerce Clause. The trial court upheld the statute, found that "Tamagni remains controlling law" despite the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wynne, and cited Tamagni in concluding that the "double taxation that occurred here 'does not fall on any identifiable interstate market' and 'does not favor intrastate commerce over interstate commerce in a manner violative of the dormant Commerce Clause.'" The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, stating that the constitutional question presented was "not substantial."

Appellate Decision. In a single paragraph, the Appellate Division upheld the determination of the trial court, concluding that Tamagni remained the law in New York despite the decision in Wynne. The court cited and relied on Edelman, which distinguished Wynne as involving taxpayers who were residents of only one state whose out-of-state business income was at issue, rather than involving intangible investment income as in Tamagni, Chamberlain and Edelman. The court found that "[n]otably, New York provides a credit for income taxes paid by its residents to other states if the income is '"derived therefrom" – i.e., earned in the other [s]tate'" and that therefore New York's residency tax system was not unconstitutional.

ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS

Neither the Third Department in Chamberlain nor the First Department in Edelman seems to have considered the fact that the Tamagni court, in reaching its conclusion, relied heavily on the determination by the U.S. Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Sweet that the Constitution does not protect state residents from their own state taxes, a determination expressly overruled in Wynne, in which the Supreme Court held that the appropriate test—even when state residents were involved—is the internal consistency test. Neither Appellate Division court applied that test, even though the dissent in Tamagni did and would have found New York's statutory residency scheme unconstitutional.

Although the Court of Appeals has already declined to grant a direct appeal in Chamberlain, finding the constitutional issue insubstantial, if presented with the issue again on appeal from the decisions of two different appellate divisions in Edelman and Chamberlain, perhaps it—or, eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court—will grant review to determine if New York's system passes the internal consistency test.

APPELLATE COURT HOLDS THAT SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RESULTED IN NEW YORK SOURCE INCOME

By Irwin M. Slomka

The question of when a settlement payment will constitute New York source income to a New York State nonresident can be difficult to answer definitively. A settlement payment received by an individual who was a nonresident member of a limited liability company in New York was held by the Appellate Division to constitute New York source income to the member for New York State personal income tax purposes. Murphy v. N.Y.S. Tax Appeals Trib., No. 524874, 2018 NY Slip Op. 07377 (3d Dep't, Nov. 1, 2018).

Facts. James and Jane Murphy, a married couple, were New Jersey residents. Mr. Murphy was a member of an insurance company operating as a limited liability company that did business in New York. In 1999, he assigned his 18.75% membership interest to his wife, Jane Murphy. That assignment resulted in litigation between Jane Murphy and the LLC, including an action brought by Ms. Murphy seeking, among other things, the value of her membership interest and a distribution of profits from the LLC.

In 2006, the LLC (which, for income tax purposes, had been taxable as a partnership) was dissolved. In 2007, a trial court awarded Ms. Murphy approximately $593,000 for her membership interest and $1,044,000 as a profit distribution, plus interest. The parties settled the litigation, with Ms. Murphy receiving a payment in 2007 of approximately $2.1 million, $593,000 of which the parties agreed constituted capital gain for her membership interest, with the remaining $1,475,000 being unspecified.

On their 2007 New York State Nonresident Income Tax Return, the Murphys did not report any portion of the $593,000 capital gain or the $1,475,000 settlement amount as New York source income. Following an audit, the Department of Taxation and Finance assessed additional personal income tax on a portion of the $1,475,000, which the Murphys had reported as "other income" on their federal return, by applying the LLC's allocation percentage from its New York State Partnership Return to that amount. This litigation followed.

Law. A nonresident individual is taxable on his or her "New York source income," which includes a "distributive share of partnership income, gain, loss and deduction," as well as any income "derived from or connected with . . . a business . . . carried on in this state." Tax Law §§631(a)(1)(A) and 632(b)(1)(B).

ALJ and Tribunal Decisions. The Murphys maintained that the $1,475,000 of "other income" was non-New York source income, claiming that it represented a "return on an intangible asset"—a membership interest in an LLC— and not a distribution of profits from a New York business. They argued that, as an assignee of her husband's membership interest, Ms. Murphy could not participate in the business of the LLC and that her payment was not attributable to property employed in a trade or business carried on in New York, one of the criteria for New York source income under the Tax Law. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Tribunal held that the $1,475,000 payment, as apportioned by the Department using the LLC's apportionment percentage, constituted New York source income. The Murphys brought an Article 78 action contesting the Tribunal's decision.

Appellate Division Decision. The Appellate Division confirmed the Tribunal's decision. Applying a deferential standard of review—including special deference because the case "involves specific application of broad statutory language" regarding the term "New York source income"—the court held that the fact that Ms. Murphy was not a member of the LLC "had no bearing on whether the profit distribution to her was taxable" because being an assignee of her husband's interest did entitle her to a share of the LLC's profits. The court noted that "it is undisputed that [the LLC] 'carried on' business" in New York.

The court held that, to determine the taxable status of a settlement payment, it is necessary to consider what the payment is being made in exchange for. Here, since Ms. Murphy brought an action seeking her share of the LLC's profits, it was reasonable to apply that characterization to all but the $593,000 payment that she recovered. The court also rejected the Murphys' claim that a portion of the settlement payment represented non-taxable interest on the judgment, noting that it was the taxpayers' burden to prove the portion representing interest, and the court stated that it was unwilling to disturb the Tribunal's finding on that issue as well.

ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS

The court's conclusion that the $1,475,000 was for Ms. Murphy's share of profits from the LLC is not unreasonable, although there is some question as to how someone with no involvement in a business can derive New York source income from that business by receiving a settlement payment. It is also problematic that no portion of the settlement payment was found to represent interest, despite the trial court having awarded interest to Ms. Murphy. It is a reminder that parties to a settlement should carefully document the components of the settlement payment. Finally, it is noteworthy that the court applied a particularly deferential standard of review—which arguably it did not have to apply here—concluding that it must defer to the Tribunal on questions of statutory interpretation if the taxpayer's interpretation is not "the 'only logical construction'" of the statute, a standard that has usually been applied to statutory exemption provisions, which were not in issue in this case.

FIRST DEPARTMENT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL OF ACTION SEEKING RELIEF IN THE ABSENCE OF DEPARTMENT ACTION

By Hollis L. Hyans

The Appellate Division, First Department, has affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, New York County, and unconditionally dismissed an action brought by a taxpayer to challenge results anticipated to arise from an audit, finding that the cases were not ripe for review by the court. SunGard Capital Corp. v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation & Fin., Nos. 155042/15, 7558, 155041/15, 7557, 2018 NY Slip Op. 07539 (1st Dep't, Nov. 8, 2018).

Background. SunGard Capital Corp. initially brought an action in 2015 against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, as well as a companion action against the New York City Department of Finance ("DOF"), asking for a declaratory judgment that a gain it incurred on the sale of two subsidiaries in 2012 should be excluded from its New York State entire net income, consistent with the method it used on its returns as filed. SunGard alleged that it expected the Department and the DOF to argue, pursuant to the decision in Matter of Bausch & Lomb, Inc., DTA No. 819883 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Dec. 20, 2007), and the Department's subsequent guidance in a Technical Memorandum, "Treatment of the Sale of Subsidiary Stock when a Subsidiary Is Included in a Combined Report," TSB-M-08(3)C (N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation & Fin., Mar. 10, 2008), that the gain should have been included in SunGard's 2012 entire net income. SunGard contended that the gain should either be excluded under Tax Law former § 211(4)(b)(2) and Admin. Code § 11-605(4) (b)(2) as gain from the sale of a subsidiary, even if the subsidiary had been a member of a combined tax return; and second, in the alternative, that, if the gain is not excluded, it should be characterized as investment income rather than as business income.

In Bausch & Lomb, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal agreed with the taxpayer and held that a loss from the sale of a subsidiary that had been included in the taxpayer's New York combined return was not attributable to subsidiary capital and therefore was includable in the computation of entire net income. The Department then issued TSB-M-08(3)C, setting out its position that the holding in Bausch & Lomb also applied to gains from the sale of stock of a corporation included in a combined return. No reported decisions have yet considered the issue in the context of a gain.

Prior decisions. In August 2015, the Department and the DOF moved to dismiss SunGard's complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction, since no audit had yet been completed and no tax had yet been determined, and therefore there was no "justiciable controversy" for the court to resolve. The Department also argued that, even if additional tax were to be assessed under the theories outlined in SunGard's complaint, SunGard would be required to exhaust its administrative remedies through the Division of Tax Appeals before it could bring an action in court. The Department also maintained that it needed to conduct an audit and that it was not yet even clear that SunGard had properly filed a combined return or that its calculation of tax was correctly based on entire net income rather than on one of the alternate bases that would apply if it resulted in a higher tax. In response, SunGard contended that the Department's position was already determined, that there were no facts in issue, and that it was facing a "direct and immediate" "threat of harm" entitling it to declaratory relief.

In May 2016, the trial court issued a short decision dismissing SunGard's action, but it did so on the condition that the Department "review the relevant tax return and issue a final determination within 120 days." The action against the DOF was similarly dismissed on the same condition.

In September 2016, the Department moved to renew its original motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and also moved to reargue, asking the court to modify its original order to delete the requirement that it complete the audit and issue its determination within the 120-day period, claiming that the audit was delayed due to a lack of cooperation by the taxpayer and that, in any case, the court had lacked authority to issue a conditional order in the first place because it had lacked jurisdiction. SunGard responded, asking for the action to move forward since the Department had not issued a notice within the 120-day deadline; denied it had delayed the audit; and contended that all necessary information had been supplied to the auditor, pointing out, in particular, that the question of the correct composition of its combined return had been finally resolved by the decision in Matter of SunGard Capital Corp., et al., DTA No. 823631 et al. (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., May 19, 2015), in which the SunGard group had been allowed to file combined returns including most of its related entities. SunGard also claimed that it had no administrative remedies to exhaust, since no notice had been issued, and that it was raising strict questions of law as well as a constitutional challenge. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directed SunGard to exhaust administrative remedies before returning to seek any judicial review.

Appellate Division Decision. The Appellate Court sustained the dismissal of SunGard's action. It found that, because the Department and the DOF had not yet completed their audits of SunGard and no tax had been assessed, the actions were not ripe and should have been dismissed for that reason. It also found that SunGard did not "face any direct or imminent harm" from either defendant. Finally, the court also found that SunGard admitted it had not exhausted administrative remedies and that it did not fall within any exception, including an exception for constitutional challenges, because the complaint raised no issue of unconstitutionality. The court also declined to reach the merits of SunGard's action, finding that only the defendants—the Department and the DOF—had made motions for relief and that SunGard did not cross-move or otherwise seek any affirmative relief.

Additional Insights. It is very difficult to challenge a deficiency determination by the Department or the DOF that has not yet been made, even when a taxpayer has a reasonable expectation of the position that the taxing agency is likely to take, whether based on previous audits or published guidance. In general, taxpayers must proceed through an audit, receive an assessment, and then challenge the assessment in an administrative hearing before bringing an action in court, unless one of the recognized exceptions to that requirement is met, such as a claim that a statute is unconstitutional or that the statute simply does not apply to it. Here, the burden was particularly difficult, since there was no assessment to challenge. As frustrating as it may sometimes be, taxpayers seem to have little recourse to contest what is only an expected assessment.

INSIGHTS IN BRIEF

APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS DENIAL OF QEZE CREDITS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT

The Appellate Division, Third Department, has upheld the denial of Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise property tax credits because the taxpayers did not meet their burden of proving that certain employees qualified for the credit calculation. Spiezio v. Comm'r of Taxation & Fin., No. 524018 (3d Dep't, Oct. 25, 2018). In order to claim the credit, the taxpayer must satisfy an employment increase factor, and, when calculating the number of employees for that factor, the taxpayer may not include individuals employed in New York by a related person within the immediately preceding 60 months. The court found that the taxpayers' proof that the employees in question were concurrently employed using a common paymaster—which, in certain circumstances, allows the employees to be counted in the factor—was inadequate to meet their burden of proof. It found that the affidavits introduced into evidence by the taxpayers were inadequate without contemporaneous supporting documentation, as were employee payroll records and an employee lease agreement for prior years.

TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AFFIRMS DECISION DENYING RELIEF ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL GROUNDS

Concluding that the same issues had been raised and addressed in a prior proceeding, the Tax Appeals Tribunal has affirmed an ALJ's finding that the petitioner was a responsible person for a company's unpaid sales taxes. Matter of Michael Silverstein, DTA No. 826952 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Oct. 23, 2018). In the prior proceeding, the Tribunal had decided that the petitioner was a responsible person based on his guilty plea admitting that he was an officer and responsible person, as well as documentary evidence demonstrating he was an officer and signatory to a banking agreement on behalf of the company. In this new proceeding, the Tribunal held that the ALJ had properly granted summary judgment to the Department, that the petitioner had been provided with a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and therefore that the petitioner was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issue of his responsibility.

ON REMAND, ALJ UPHOLDS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF QEZE STATUTORY CHANGE

An ALJ has upheld the retroactive application of statutory amendments that restricted the availability of QEZE tax credits after the issue was remanded by the Tax Appeals Tribunal because the ALJ had initially found that application of a statute enacted in April 2009 to the beginning of the 2009 year did not involve retroactive application. Matter of NRG Energy, Inc., DTA No. 826921 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Nov. 8, 2018). NRG Energy, Inc. relied on the holding by the New York Court of Appeals that retroactive application of the 2009 QEZE amendments to the year beginning January 1, 2008, violated the Due Process Clause and was unconstitutional, James Square Assocs. LP. v. Mullen, 21 N.Y.3d 233 (2013), and the Tribunal agreed that applying the amendments back to January 2009 was indeed a retroactive application. However, on remand, the ALJ concluded that, despite the absence of a public purpose for the amendments, due to the extremely short period of retroactivity, the application of the 2009 amendments back to January 2009 did not violate NRG's due process rights.

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.

Authors
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
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions