Common use of Significant Non-Compliance Clause in Contracts

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Slovak Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Colombian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Irish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Honduran Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Australian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Mauritius Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Italian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Saint Lucia Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Polish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Estonian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Mexican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Romanian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Croatian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Guyanese Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Hungarian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Cyprus Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Brazilian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Curaçao Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Tunisian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Barbados Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Panamanian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese German Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Jamaican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Guernsey Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Manx Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Turkish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese South African Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese New Zealand Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Belgian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Costa Rican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Liechtenstein Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Malta Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese French Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Philippine Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Czech Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Netherlands Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Israeli Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Latvian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Indian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Finnish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Thai Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Dominican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Portuguese Hellenic Republic Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.