... I don t see that anyone has answered this part. If it s not too late, to help, I parse it as: . . . [an amount] such that after deduction of any chargesMessage 1 of 5 , Nov 29, 2005View SourceHelena Subrtova wrote:
> Dobry den,I don't see that anyone has answered this part. If
> z nasledujiciho textu mi neni jasna cast "required to pay or withold in
> respect to or calculated with reference to such amount, the remainder
> actually received by, due"
> All payments . . . shall be . . .
> . . . in an amount[***] . . .
> . . . such that after deduction of any [charges] . . .
> . . . which . . . any . . . party
> shall be required to pay or withold in respect to or calculated
> with reference to such amount[***], the remainder . . .
> . . . payable to X shall be the amou[n]ts specified in this Agreement.
it's not too late, to help, I parse it as:
". . . [an amount] such that after deduction of any charges
which any of these people are required
to pay or withold (i.e., to hold
in reserve for later payment to the gov't[*n1])
in respect to or calculated
with reference to such amount [*n2]
the remainder [i.e., amount minus charges = remainder]
actually paid will be the agreed amount."
*** The antecedent for "such amount" is "in an amount"
n1: the U.S. has a witholding system: so the charges
are ones _either_ paid or witheld for later payment
n2: "in respect to or calculated with reference to" is
arguably redundant (actually, there's law about the
difference between taxes "on" certain amounts, and
taxes "measured by" or "calculated on" amounts -- but
for present purposes, ignore it); you can probably
treat it as being simply "s ohledem"
In short, the deal is: (1) we've agreed to a certain
amount that X should get, net after everything. (2) We
know that there will be taxes or other charges on
anything paid to X. (3) We can do the math on how
much the tax and charges will be. (4) Any math that
we can do forward, we can do backwards. (5)
Therefore, the *beginning* amount has to be more than
the *agreed NET* amount, by just exactly as much as
will work out in the math.
For example, if for every $100 X gets, the tax laws say
X must pay or withold 20% ($20), then we know X would
only get $80 net. In order to make sure that X *NETS*
the agreed $100, the amount to use at the beginning has
to be $125 -- because that way, when 20% is witheld
(20% of $125 being $25), the remainder (the net) will
be $100, the agreed amount.
As for the other questions, I take the first one
(authorizations) to mean that if licensee's government
has rules that would keep licensee from paying as
agreed, then licensee should do whatever is possible to
get the government to let licensee pay (get whatever
authorization, in whatever form is necessary: a permit,
a waiver, a declaration that a certain exception
Your last paragraph was marred by the author's attempt
to do too much: it would be to effect (make) filings,
and to obtain approvals.