After 29 years of writing ICT contracts and 29 years as an ICT owner, it is difficult to say whether, over the years, I have learned more from the feedback from my clients and their brokers, or from my experience with the eight ICTs I have personally participated in, but I can say with certainty that each day brings new knowledge and ideas how to manage ICT and improve ICT contracts. The gradual evolution of our ICT agreements continues every week as we make small changes to adapt to the latest cycle of unforeseen events and new issues. But from time to time, we rework the basic agreement models tic from scratch and we make fundamental structural and organizational changes that cannot be dealt with gradually. We have gone through this process over the past eight months and are now proud to announce the “next generation” ICT agreements. In this article, I will describe some of the most important changes and problems we encountered when they were created. The taxpayer seeking the LLP owned a commercial building (the “property”) by a single LLC member. The taxpayer and the proposed co-owner (the “new co-owner”) planned to enter into a lease and option agreement simultaneously. It is important that these two agreements were not established as condominiums (and the IRS did not claim that they had created them). It turns out that about 95% of ICT groups are well understood and never need to use their ICT agreement. The other 5%, the “problem groups,” rely heavily on their contract.
One of the common traits of these problem groups is a member who is not particularly attentive and who regularly stretches or bends the rules. Victims of this behaviour often complain about the burden of imposing the rules against the wrong actor; they wonder why they should bear the costs of hiring a lawyer and engage in an expensive dispute resolution process, while the thoughtless and disrespectful owner waits for the consequences, and then the process begins with a new offence. Better yet worse, no legal contract is required. An impartial judge or arbitrator must be available to resolve disputes and, if necessary, strengthen the power of the state to impose compliant conduct.