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 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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.

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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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 Slovak 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.