You will only be asked to do this if you have more than 15 % equity in your property (banks have traditionally not lent money in excess of 85 % of the property's value), if the amount being released was above
a de minimis value (i.e. your IP usually wouldn't expect you to remortgage to release less than # 5,000) and if your IP believes you can afford the repayments (see IVA Remortgage).
Not exact matches
Because the amount of market discount, two points, is less than the
de minimis amount (which in this case is 2.5 points, or 0.25 percent of the face
value of a bond times the number of years between the bond's acquisition and its maturity), the market discount is considered to be zero and the difference between purchase price and sales price or redemption is generally treated as a capital gain upon disposition or redemption.
Under the
de minimis rule, if a bond is purchased with a small amount of market discount — an amount less than 0.25 percent of the face
value of a bond times the number of complete years between the bond's acquisition date and its maturity date — the market discount is considered to be zero.
In this paragraph, the term «gift» means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, or other item having a monetary
value of more than a
de minimis amount.
In this paragraph, the term «gift» means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, or other item having a monetary
value of more than a
de minimis amount.
or at most is
de minimis in property resale
value??!!
In short, the High Court found that the commercial practices would only be acceptable «if the payment required was
de minimis (such as the purchase of a stamp or the cost of an ordinary telephone call), no part of which would benefit the trader concerned, and if that payment were
de minimis compared with the
value of the prize won» (account rendered by the CJEU in C - 428 / 11 at para 19, emphasis added).
That wording does not allow for any exception, meaning that it is evident that the expression «incur a cost» does not allow the consumer to bear the slightest cost, even if it is
de minimis compared with the
value of the prize or a cost which would not procure any advantage for the trader, such as the cost of a stamp.
47 Equally, that objective would not be achieved if traders were allowed to impose on the consumer costs which are «
de minimis» compared with the
value of the prize.
34 In addition, given the absolute nature of the prohibition on imposing any cost, the offer of a number of options can not eliminate the unfair character of the practice if any of the proposed options were to require the consumer to bear a cost, even a
de minimis cost compared with the
value of the prize.
Under § 156.420 (a), for each of its silver health plans that an issuer offers, the issuer must offer three variations of the standard silver plan that reflect, in addition to the applicable annual limitation on cost - sharing, the following: (1) A silver plan variation with cost - sharing reductions such that the actuarial
value (AV) of the variation is 94 percent plus or minus the
de minimis variation for a silver plan variation; (2) a silver plan variation with cost - sharing reductions such that the AV of the variation is 87 percent plus or minus the
de minimis variation for a silver plan variation; and (3) a silver plan variation with cost - sharing reductions such that the AV of the variation is 73 percent plus or minus the
de minimis variation for a silver plan variation.
Since the Company continues to assess the contingent events from occurring on the date of, and subsequent to the issuance of the call option as remote, the initial fair
value of the call option was deemed to be
de minimis and therefore not recorded in the consolidated financial statements.