If a Council and an MRF operator have concluded a processing agreement on or after 1 December 2017, it is not necessary for a Council to inform the EPA accordingly. Section 18 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (Container Deposit System) Regulations, 2017 sets out the requirements to be eligible. In particular, processing refunds are not payable unless material recovery facility (MRF) operators can request the return and obtain processing refunds for beverage containers collected during household waste management in a municipal area. Tax allocation agreements typically cover common topics such as: In 1998, the FDIC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Economy Supervision issued guidelines on the allocation of income tax in a holding company. The Guidelines specify, inter alia, that a tax offset agreement should be drawn up to make it clear that the holding company receiving a tax refund is acting on behalf of its members as an agent of the group. The agreement should not designate refunds attributable to a subsidiary depositary that the parent company receives from a tax authority as property of the parent company. Following the publication of the 1998 Guidelines, the courts reached different conclusions on whether tax allocation treaties create a debtor-creditor relationship between a holding company and failing banks that are insured deposit-taking institutions (IDIs). Some courts have found that the tax refunds in question were owned by the bankrupt holding company (and not owned by the IDI subsidiary) and were held by the holding company as a debtor of the IDI – meaning that a bank would have to align itself with other creditors to claim its tax refund. These findings were generally the result of tax-sharing agreements that were unclear about the allocation of refunds. In 2014, regulators responded by issuing additional guidance advising consolidated groups to review their tax allocation agreements to confirm that they clearly recognise that there is an agency relationship between the holding company and its IDI subsidiaries with regard to tax refunds. Under the additional guidance, agreements that are not could be subject to additional requirements under Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which limits a member bank`s ability to fund its affiliates through a loan or similar transaction.
The regulators have provided the Companies with the following language model: The [Holding Company] is a representative of [IDI and its subsidiaries] (the “Institution”) with respect to all matters relating to consolidated income tax returns and claims, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as modifying or modifying such agency relationship. If the [holding company] receives a tax refund from a tax authority, those funds shall be raised as a representative of the institution. Any tax refund resulting from income, taxes and losses suffered by the institution shall be the property and property of the institution and shall be held in trust by the [holding company] for the benefit of the institution. The [holding company] shall immediately transfer the amounts held in trust to the executive body. Nothing in this Agreement shall or be construed as granting the [Holding Company] any interest in any tax refund attributable to income earned, taxes paid and losses incurred by the Institution. The [Holding Company] hereby agrees that this tax sharing agreement does not confer on it any interest in a tax refund generated by the tax attributes of the institution.1 Counsel may notify the EPO of an agreement on the allocation of the refund (or its absence) via the notification form (PDF 103KB) or by providing all relevant details in an email. Holding companies that have not yet amended their tax-sharing agreements should consider a revision to include the standard wording. However, until the Supreme Court intervenes, the lower courts may reach different conclusions as to whether an agreement establishes a debtor-creditor relationship. A Supreme Court decision could potentially lead to additional regulatory guidance on the road. He says some choose to exchange the refund, but there are also many people who continue with the sidewalk tank.
If a chamber and an operator of the MRF have concluded a processing agreement as from 1 December 2017, it is not necessary for a board to inform the EPO accordingly. If an offer was signed after 1 December 2017, the resulting contract must provide specific information on how CDS revenues will be distributed, otherwise everything will remain in the hands of the MRF. Therefore, boards of directors are responsible for seeking professional and independent advice from the Office of Local Government before entering into an agreement with FMRs. . . .
