Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wazza
This is the basis of my remarks regarding entities which are formed within the US purely for the purpose of enabling access to US based third party billing providers:
"Four commenters objected to the inclusion in the definition of producer of parent organizations and subsidiaries of producers, claiming it was beyond the Department's statutory authority, did not specify which entities must comply with the statute, overrode state laws on business associations, and violated the principles of Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno. While not confirming the validity of, or adopting, the specific objections of the commenters, the Department has eliminated the inclusion of parent and subsidiary organizations in the definition of producer."
|viking|
|
wazza, the issue of companies for billing is more complicated than just being arms or subsidiaries. In order to obtain processing, these US companies must declare themselves as owners or in control of the websites in question. Excluding parent ot subsidiary organizations just means that if a company has a sub created for a production, the principal company is not ALSO required to hold the records. The primary (or secondary) producer holds the records.
Of course, that would go out the window if sub "a" makes content and sub "b" runs websites with it. It is likely that each one would have to have records, one as the primary producer and one as the secondary producer.
This isn't simple!
Alex