Overlapping insurance polices There are various reasons why an insured may end up with overlapping insurance cover, whether deliberately or otherwise. Examples include the situation where the insured takes the benefit of other insurance arranged by another party or where, in the commercial world, risk managers may be unaware of prior insurances effected by predecessors in their role. Similarly, an insured may inadvertently take out insurance in respect of specific property without realising that the property is already covered by an existing policy with a broader scope of cover. Alternatively, the insured may simply wish to increase its amount of cover or, conceivably, to protect itself against the risk of its insurers becoming insolvent. There is no common law requirement to avoid double insurance. Insureds may insure an insurable interest as many times under as many policies as they wish (Godin v London Assurance (1758) 1 Burr. 489 (not reported by LexisNexis®); Albion Insurance Co Ltd v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1969) 121 C.L.R. 342) (not reported by LexisNexis®). Nor

A structure that may be used for acquisition finance transactions in France. This structure entails the establishment of two Luxembourg companies to sit above the French acquisition vehicle. The top Luxembourg company will typically grant the lenders a charge over its shares in the subsidiary Luxembourg company. The aim of this is to give the lenders an alternative to having to enforce security in France where there are significant borrower protections.

A claimant cannot claim for the same loss twice, e.g. sick pay is treated as wages so that it is deducible from damages.

The syndicated loan scheme (SLS) enables the manager of a syndicate of lenders to make a single application on behalf of all of its lending members who are resident in jurisdictions which have a double tax treaty (DTT) with the UK to obtain relief from the obligation to deduct (and account to HMRC for) an amount in respect of UK income tax on UK source interest paid to them provided the relevant DTTs provide for such relief. This Practice Note refers to the obligation to deduct (and account to HMRC for) an amount in respect of UK income tax from UK source yearly interest payments as a withholding tax even though it is actually a method of collecting UK income tax from the UK-based payer rather than from the recipient. References in this Practice Note to gross payments are to payments from which tax has not been, and is not required to be, deducted. This Practice Note explains: • how the SLS provides a simpler method of obtaining relief for a syndicate’s

An agreement (also called DTT) allocating taxing rights between jurisdictions aimed at preventing double taxation and cross-border tax evasion. They are international agreements forming part of the tax law of each state. They generally relieve from taxation and cannot impose a higher tax burden than that arising under domestic legislation.

This refers to the payment of tax twice, both at the point of payment and at the point of receipt where the payment is received in a country that is not the country in which it was paid. Countries may voluntarily enter into double taxation agreements to prevent tax being levied twice.

A relief contained in a double tax treaty, the aim of which is to avoid double taxation where two or more countries tax the same property or event. See also ‘unilateral relief’.

International tax law is mostly concerned with the taxing rights of states. As with all forms of international law, the need to deal with such issues arises from jurisdictional conflict. Such conflict can arise when more than one state claims the right to impose a similar levy on the same arrangement or transaction. There are two types of double taxation: • economic double taxation, which focuses on the continuity of the tax object (ie the same property being taxed), and • juridical double taxation, which focuses on the continuity of the tax subject (ie the same person being taxed) and can be defined as: two or more taxes, imposed on the same property, in the hands of the same person, during the same period, for the same purpose Double taxation can be eliminated or reduced by the domestic law of the UK and of other countries (see below Unilateral relief—income and capital gains), as well as by double tax treaty (DTT). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed a model DTT (OECD Model

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal has found that the test of ‘Place of Effective Management’ (POEM) in a double taxation treaty (DTT) is not the same as the central management and control (CMC) test for company residence. POEM is frequently used in DTTs as a tiebreaker to determine in which of two contracting states a person other than an individual (eg a company or trust) is resident for the purposes of the DTT. There is limited case law, either in the UK or internationally, on how the test should be applied. The court rejected the appellants’ submissions that a tribunal determining POEM should adopt a test derived from the CMC case of Wood v Holden, with the focus upon whether the decision-making functions of the constitutional organs have been usurped or dictated to. It found no support for this submission in authorities or materials admissible to interpret the DTT. Written by Christopher Stone KC, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed merger between Dow and DuPont (Case M.7932). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for crop protection, seed and certain petrochemicals. Latest developments On 27 March 2017, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments. Under the commitments, the parties will (1) divest a significant part of DuPont's existing pesticide business, including its R&D organisation, and (2) two of Dow's manufacturing plants for acid co-polymers as well as a contract with a third party through which it sources ionomers. Parties Dow is a US-based company headquartered in Michigan. It is a diversified chemicals company, part of a wider group active in plastics and chemicals, agricultural sciences, and hydrocarbon and energy products and services. DuPont is a US-based company headquartered in Delaware. It is active in the research, development, production, distribution and sale of a variety of chemical products,

When a bond's credit rating is lowered.

This Practice Note deals with how a sponsor in Workers and Temporary Workers routes can lose its licence or have it limited. These are: • downgrading • revocation • suspension • surrender by sponsor, or • reduction of Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) allocation The relevant Home Office guidance for sponsors is set out in the Workers and Temporary Workers Sponsor Guidance, particularly in Part 3, which deals with sponsor duties and compliance. In R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD); R (West London Vocational Training College) v SSHD, the Supreme Court held that the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) provides a general statutory authority for the SSHD to administer a sponsor licensing system, including vetting sponsors, by way of rules which do not require to be laid before Parliament. Only mandatory criteria which relate to a person's qualifying for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay must be laid before Parliament as Immigration Rules.