|
Recent differentiation in VAT treatment of emissions transactions and the IETA master agreement |
 |
 |
|
Monday, 03 May 2010 19:14 |
Taking into account that ETMA’s last version (3.0) was designed in 2008, the question may arise whether the text of the master agreement shows the required elasticity, to cover the multiplicity of approaches taken recently in the matter of VAT taxation of EUAs, CERs and ERUs trading. Let’s remind that they are ranging from exemption from VAT and zero rate, through “reverse charge” to standard rate.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Thirty days for a withdrawal of the petition to declare bankruptcy - an Event of Default in the IETA Master Agreement |
|
|
|
Tuesday, 07 July 2009 21:50 |
|
Under the point 12.2 (d) (iv) of the IETA Master Agreement (Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme version 3.0) a party to the IETA agreement has only 30 days to cause the withdrawal of the petition to declare bankruptcy, filed to the court with respect to it. If it fails to do so, the other party of the IETA agreement is entitled to terminate the agreement as a consequence of an Event of Default.
Taking into account, that in some countries of the European Union judicial procedures are not so efficient and the period of 30 days is far too short to do anything in this respect, it may be the considerable risk . Let’s see, how it is working on the Polish market.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
An error in the definition of Delivering Party’s Replacement Cost (Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme version 3.0)? |
|
|
|
Monday, 06 July 2009 10:29 |
|
It seems to be an error in the definition of Delivering Party’s Replacement Cost in the Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme version 3.0.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
