Common use of Alternative facts Clause in Contracts

Alternative facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this Example 2, except that P’s Country X business oper- ations constitute a foreign branch as defined in § 1.367(a)–6T(g)(1), but do not constitute a § 1.1503(d)–7 permanent establishment under the U.S.– Country X income tax convention. Although the activities carried on by P in Country X would otherwise constitute a foreign branch separate unit as described in § 1.1503(d)– 1(b)(4)(i)(A), the exception under § 1.1503(d)– 1(b)(4)(iii) applies because the activities do not constitute a permanent establishment under the U.S.–Country X income tax con- vention. Thus, the Country X business oper- ations do not constitute a foreign branch separate unit, and the year 1 loss is not sub- ject to the dual consolidated loss rules. If P instead carried on its Country X business op- erations through DE1X, then the exception under § 1.1503(d)–1(b)(4)(iii) would not apply because P carries on the business operations through a hybrid entity and, as a result, the business operations would constitute a for- eign branch separate unit. Thus, in such a case the year 1 loss would be subject to the dual consolidated loss rules.

Alternative facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this Example 2, Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.1503(d)–7 except that P’s Country X business oper- ations constitute a foreign branch as defined in § 1.367(a)–6T(g)(1), but do not constitute a § 1.1503(d)–7 permanent establishment under the U.S.– Country X income tax convention. Although the activities carried on by P in Country X would otherwise constitute a foreign branch separate unit as described in § 1.1503(d)– 1(b)(4)(i)(A), the exception under § 1.1503(d)– 1(b)(4)(iii) applies because the activities do not constitute a permanent establishment under the U.S.–Country X income tax con- vention. Thus, the Country X business oper- ations do not constitute a foreign branch separate unit, and the year 1 loss is not sub- ject to the dual consolidated loss rules. If P instead carried on its Country X business op- erations through DE1X, then the exception under § 1.1503(d)–1(b)(4)(iii) would not apply because P carries on the business operations through a hybrid entity and, as a result, the business operations would constitute a for- eign branch separate unit. Thus, in such a case the year 1 loss would be subject to the dual consolidated loss rules.

Alternative facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this Example 2, except that P’s Country X business oper- ations constitute a foreign branch as defined in § 1.367(a)–6T(g)(1), but do not constitute a Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.1503(d)–7 permanent establishment under the U.S.– Country X income tax convention. Although the activities carried on by P in Country X would otherwise constitute a foreign branch separate unit as described in § 1.1503(d)– 1(b)(4)(i)(A), the exception under § 1.1503(d)– 1(b)(4)(iii) applies because the activities do not constitute a permanent establishment under the U.S.–Country X income tax con- vention. Thus, the Country X business oper- ations do not constitute a foreign branch separate unit, and the year 1 loss is not sub- ject to the dual consolidated loss rules. If P instead carried on its Country X business op- erations through DE1X, then the exception under § 1.1503(d)–1(b)(4)(iii) would not apply because P carries on the business operations through a hybrid entity and, as a result, the business operations would constitute a for- eign branch separate unit. Thus, in such a case the year 1 loss would be subject to the dual consolidated loss rules.