To mitigate the effects of double taxation, most countries in the world have bilateral double taxation agreements with most other countries in the world. The terms of these contracts vary, but over time, as they are renewed regularly, many are reformulated according to an OECD model. This gradually removes some of the characteristics of certain treaties. If, for example, many contracts allow a 100% exemption from property tax on the territory of the taker if certain conditions are met, some contracts with the countries of the Far East have historically allowed only a 50% reduction. In the 1990s, IP Draughts participated in the help of a British biotechnology company that was affected by the fact that the contract between the United Kingdom and Japan allowed only a 50% discharge. IP Draughts understands that the recent treaty between Britain and Japan allows for a 100% exemption from the withholding tax. When I am faced with a clause like this, I have always thought that withholding tax should satisfy the tax debt of the IP seller, and if they were dissatisfied, they could include it with the taxman. This was supported by the fact that most of the agreements I have been involved in come from competitive purchases. An IP provider that insists that the source withholding price be "restocked" effectively changes its offer and risks that its offer will no longer be the best bidder if its offer is delivered and it has just negotiated from a customer. I see how, in other contexts, the "with the taxman" attitude can be less effective.
This term is different from a few others in the series in many ways. First, it focuses on an IP problem, or rather a problem of IP taxes — 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. When a withholding tax is deducted from the payments, begging increases the amount paid to the boss, so that the amount the boss receives after deducting the withholding tax is the total amount that the boss would have received in the absence of withholding or deduction. The text above provides that the parties will try to avoid withholding tax, but in the end, if the licensee is required to deduct taxes, he can do so. This is a tax issue for the licensee and, ultimately, the donor bears the risk in the above formulation. This levy at source is commonly referred to as withholding tax. Taxes can be interesting! This golden oldie deals with a recurring issue of purchase and design in licensing agreements - who takes the risk of selling the tax? In biotechnographic licensing agreements (to cite one of the examples cited above), IP Draughs has typically seen formulations such as this: in the unilateral example cited, it seems to me that the party that is required to exercise restraint will never be able to comply with the obligation.