Substance during the emergency measures: force-majeure remote working and travel disruption

In “standard” compliance seasons, substance discussions are framed as design questions: where does the business truly operate, where are functions performed, and what level of people and asset footprint is commensurate with the income profile. The first days of March 2026 have turned this into a live operational stress-test.

Public reporting indicates that the UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratization (MoHRE) recommended that private-sector employers implement remote work “wherever possible” for a short period (1–3 March 2026), and to limit employee presence in open areas except for vital roles requiring physical attendance. At the same time, major regional aviation disruption has been widely reported, including flight suspensions and airspace constraints[1] capable of leaving employees temporarily unable to return to their usual place of work.

This conjunction matters because substance rules – both in UAE Corporate Tax (for Free Zone outcomes) and under Pillar Two GLoBE (for the SBIE carve-out) – are built on a basic assumption that human activity and tangible footprint are sufficiently “place-based” to be used as legal proxies. When remote work is urged by the authorities, and when mobility frictions make physical presence intermittently impossible, the key question becomes interpretive: should the law treat temporary, involuntary displacement

• as a structural failure of substance, or
• as a time-bounded compliance incident that must be evidenced and contained?

These fact patterns as used as a platform for further research across three linked themes in this article. First, it examines the legal character of “location” where personnel presence is involuntary, including whether the relevant tests should follow actual physical presence mechanically or should incorporate an “intended jurisdiction” concept in tightly defined force-majeure cases. Second, it considers what evidentiary architecture is needed to distinguish compelled displacement from deliberate redeployment. Third, it explores consistency across instruments that target profit misallocation.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/flights-depart-middle-east-travel-chaos

Substance under Corporate Tax and GLoBE SBIE

1. The current architecture of “substance” is not uniform across regimes. Under the UAE Corporate Tax Free Zone regime, substance operates primarily as a jurisdictional entitlement condition: the 0% rate on Qualifying Income is reserved for a Qualifying Free Zone Person (“QFZP”) that undertakes its core income-generating activities (“CIGAs”) in a Free Zone and maintains “adequate” assets, qualified employees, and operating expenditure having regard to the level of activity.

2. Under the GLoBE rules (Pillar Two), substance is not a gateway to a preferential rate. Instead, it is a formulaic reduction of the jurisdictional excess profit base, implemented through the Substance-Based Income Exclusion (SBIE) – a carve-out calculated by reference to eligible payroll costs and eligible tangible assets.

3. In other words, UAE CT uses substance to answer “where is the business really carried on for the 0% rate?”. The GLoBE uses substance to answer “how much routine return should be carved out before top-up tax is computed?”.

4. Notwithstanding these structural differences, the practical core question addressed in this article is similar in both systems: how to determine the relevant “location” of personnel for substance purposes where individuals are temporarily displaced due to force-majeure constraints such as travel restrictions, safety concerns, or mandatory remote working.

5. The analysis therefore focuses on the extent to which each regime treats temporary, compelled changes in the physical presence of employees as affecting

• whether CIGAs can still be regarded as undertaken “in the Free Zone” for UAE Corporate Tax purposes, and
• how payroll-based substance is attributed for SBIE purposes under GLoBE when employees cannot be physically present in the expected jurisdiction.

The UAE Free Zone substance condition: “CIGAs must be undertaken in a Free Zone” as a hard location anchor

6. The relevant primary statement is straightforward: a QFZP must undertake its CIGAs in a Free Zone and, having regard to the activity level, have adequate assets, adequate qualified employees, and adequate operating expenditure. The rule is drafted as a location mandate, not merely a staffing or cost test. “Adequate employees” and “adequate expenditure” are necessary, but they do not replace the location condition that the CIGAs are undertaken in the Free Zone. This mechanism is not merely an operational convenience; it reveals the legislative policy: the UAE wants the value-creating functions (or their supervised performance) to be anchored inside the Free Zone ecosystem.

The difficult fact pattern: CIGAs “must be performed in the Free Zone” but the team is pushed into remote work

7. If UAE CT requires CIGAs to be performed in the Free Zone, the analysis must address how the requirement operates where CIGAs are temporarily executed remotely due to safety constraints or other circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control.

8. The legal tension is that the text is location-anchored, while modern operating models are location-fluid. This is exactly where interpretive method and “spirit of the law” become more than rhetoric.

9. A principled analysis starts by distinguishing three categories of remote-work scenarios:

• Elective remote model (a business choice), e.g. the QFZP maintains only a nominal presence in the Free Zone while most real decision-making and execution happen elsewhere. This is the scenario the substance rule is designed to police.
• Mixed model with continuing Free Zone control: physical presence fluctuates, but key governance, supervision, records, and meaningful operational capacity remain anchored in the Free Zone (and outsourcing inside the Free Zone can be used as a stabilizer).
• Force-majeure displacement: physical presence outside the Free Zone is temporary and compelled by constraints (travel restrictions, sudden safety issues, inability to enter the zone, emergency evacuation, or similar) while the business intends to revert and continues to operate under Free Zone-anchored governance as far as possible.

The legal question is whether (3) should be treated as a technical failure of the location condition with no excuse, or as a temporary factual deviation that does not defeat entitlement when assessed purposively.

Interpretive analogy

10. The “tax-residency displacement” line of reasoning can be explored as an interpretive analogy. It draws on established tax-technical treatments of compelled, temporary displacement (in residence and permanent establishment contexts) as a reference point for analyzing how personnel location should be characterized under a location-anchored substance test.

11. During COVID-19, the OECD Secretariat addressed treaty risks that arise specifically because individuals may be stranded or required to work remotely outside their ordinary jurisdiction.[1] It framed the note as applying existing treaty rules and Commentary to three clusters of concerns:

• the creation of permanent establishments (home office and dependent agent PE) and the interruption of construction sites;
• changes in residence for entities and individuals (including tie-breaker rules); and
• employment income issues, including stranded workers and teleworking from abroad (para. 8).

Within the PE cluster, it then adopts a clear “non-structural” premise: an exceptional and temporary change in where employees work because of the pandemic (including working from home) should not create new PEs, and jurisdictions may even consider “stopping the clock” for construction-site duration thresholds during periods where operations are suspended as a public-health measure (para. 10).

The same logic can be extrapolated to a location-anchored CIGA test: where physical presence functions as a proxy for genuine location, a time-bounded, involuntary displacement should not be treated as “countable” evidence that CIGAs were not undertaken in the Free Zone, provided the taxpayer can demonstrate that the displacement was compelled rather than a deliberate redeployment.

12. In UAE interpretive method, reliance on analogy must be framed carefully. Article (1) of the UAE Civil Transactions Law No. 25 of 2025 requires that legislative provisions apply “in the letter and in the spirit”, and contemplates structured gap-filling where no provision exists. At the same time, Article (30) provides an explicit constraint: exceptions may not be used by analogy, nor may their interpretations be extended. Accordingly, the point is not to “import” an external exception into the Corporate Tax substance framework, but to use analogy, consistent with “letter and spirit”, as a tool of factual characterization. Where physical presence functions as a proxy for genuine location, an extraordinary, compelled, and time-bounded displacement should not be mistaken for deliberate structuring, provided the taxpayer can evidence continuity, effective supervision, and the limited duration of the disruption.

13. Of course, UAE CT substance is domestic law, not a treaty test, and the UAE is not obliged to import OECD COVID treaty commentary into CT interpretation. Rather, the OECD materials demonstrate a mainstream interpretive norm in tax law. Where legal tests use physical presence as a proxy for genuine location, extraordinary forced displacement should not be allowed to distort the legal characterization, provided the taxpayer can evidence the underlying continuity.

14. The UAE’s own tax administration has already operationalized a closely related concept in Sec. 4.1.6 of the FTA’s Tax Resident and Tax Residency Certificate Guide No. TPGTR1. When discussing effective management and control, the FTA recognizes that the presence of the person(s) making key management and commercial decisions in the UAE may be due to temporary and exceptional circumstances, listing examples that include public health measures, travel restrictions, legal sanctions preventing departure, acts of war/terrorism, natural disasters or force majeure, and emergency health conditions.

15. This demonstrates that, at least in the PoEM context, UAE tax guidance already distinguishes compelled, temporary displacement from ordinary fact patterns—supporting the relevance (as a matter of method, not as a transplanted exception) of analyzing personnel location under substance tests through the lens of temporariness, compulsion, and continuity.

[1] OECD (2021), “Updated guidance on tax treaties and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df42be07-en.

What a defensible position could look like

16. A defensible “force-majeure displacement” position under the UAE Free Zone substance condition would aim to show that, notwithstanding temporary remote execution, the core value creation remains functionally anchored in the Free Zone through governance, supervision, and operational infrastructure.

17. In scholarly terms, if the location requirement uses physical performance as a proxy for “real Free Zone activity”, then where physical performance is temporarily impossible, the taxpayer should be permitted to preserve the proxy through alternative indicia that are consistent with the same policy objective.

18. The most persuasive indicia tend to be those that mirror the regulation’s own structure (CIGA location + adequacy of employees/assets/expenditure + supervision where outsourced):

18.1. Governance continuity in the Free Zone

Maintain contemporaneous “emergency governance” documentation showing that key management instructions, authorizations, and approvals continue to be issued and recorded from the Free Zone to the maximum extent practicable. Where physical presence of senior personnel is constrained, appoint a local Free Zone–based coordinator (with a clear written mandate) to coordinate the relevant activity from within the Free Zone, provided this arrangement is safe, time-bounded, and does not conflict with any applicable authority instructions (e.g. safety directives, entry restrictions, or other mandatory measures).

18.2. Substantiated necessity

Maintain contemporaneous “compulsion evidence” demonstrating that remote execution was driven by external constraints rather than preference. This should include, as applicable, official notices on flight bans or travel restrictions, Free Zone or governmental access limitations, employer-mandated safety protocols, emergency orders, and internal incident reports documenting why in-zone performance was temporarily impracticable.

18.3. Time-boundedness and reversion intent

Maintain a written “reversion plan” (with dates, triggers, and responsible persons) evidencing that remote execution is temporary and that the business intends to restore ordinary Free Zone performance as soon as feasible. Supporting records may include updated work policies, staffing rosters, reopening/access approvals, and board (management) resolutions confirming the planned reversion.

18.4. Free Zone outsourcing under supervision

Where feasible, maintain a documented “outsourcing continuity” arrangement under which the relevant CIGAs are performed by a Free Zone service provider, with evidence of the QFZP’s effective supervision and control (scope of work, supervision protocols, reporting lines, deliverables, and review (approval) trails). This can preserve the “performed in the Free Zone” anchor in a manner consistent with the regime’s logic.

18.5. No duplication or hollowing-out

Maintain contemporaneous “non-migration evidence” showing that the temporary remote set-up does not evolve into a parallel operating platform in another jurisdiction. This may include controls over signing authority and decision rights, limits on overseas contracting and approvals, segregation of foreign premises/resources, and documentation that key operational infrastructure remains Free Zone-anchored.

19. What is crucial here is intellectual honesty: the argument is not that “remote work equals Free Zone work.” The argument is that compelled, temporary remote execution is not the mischief the rule targets. Accordingly, on a purposive reading, the condition should be treated as satisfied where the enterprise can demonstrate continuity of Free Zone-anchored operations and supervision, with disruption affecting the mechanics of execution rather than the substantive locus of activity.

20. This aligns with how substance tests are commonly administered. The FTA tends to focus on whether the facts indicate deliberate substance deficit rather than penalizing genuine businesses for temporary disruption. That said, where the statutory test is explicitly location-anchored, the position is only as strong as the documentation supporting continuity, supervision, and time-boundedness.

The GLoBE side: SBIE and the “employee can’t return due to flight restrictions” scenario

21. Pillar Two proceeds on the premise that personnel and assets may be deployed across jurisdictions for legitimate operational reasons, and it therefore builds the SBIE around jurisdictional attribution rules rather than rigid assumptions of static presence.[1] This is reflected in the Commentary’s treatment of the payroll carve-out. Payroll costs are used as a proxy for substantive activities carried out by employees in the relevant jurisdiction, and the Commentary explicitly turns to (i) identifying Eligible Employees, (ii) identifying the location where they carry out their activities, and (iii) identifying the associated Eligible Payroll Costs.

22. Conceptually, the SBIE is intended to remove from the jurisdictional base a fixed routine return on substantive factors that are comparatively “less mobile” and, for that reason, serve as better proxies for real activity.[2] However, the Commentary makes clear that “less mobile” does not mean “immobile”: the proxy is protected through allocation rules that determine how much of the payroll carve-out is attributable to activity performed inside versus outside the employer’s jurisdiction.

23. According to paragraph 33.1 of the Commentary:

• “Where the employee undertakes more than 50% of their activities for the MNE Group during the relevant period within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer, the Constituent Entity will be entitled to the full payroll carve-out with respect to that employee.
• Where the employee undertakes 50% or less of their activities for the MNE Group during the relevant period within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer, the Constituent Entity will only be entitled to the proportion of the payroll carve-out attributable to the employee’s working time spent within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer. For example, if the Eligible Employee spends only 30% of their working time in the jurisdiction of their Constituent Entity employer, then the Constituent Entity is only able to claim 30% of the payroll carve-out with respect to that Eligible Employee”.

Against that background, where an employee cannot return because flights are restricted, the GLoBE question is not framed in terms of fault or fairness. It is a computational attribution question: for the relevant period, how much of the employee’s working time (or activities) is treated as performed within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer?

24. The Commentary resolves this through a majority-activity threshold and, failing that, a proportional allocation. This design makes the SBIE comparatively resilient to temporary dislocation. The payroll carve-out is computed by reference to a rule-based allocation (majority-activity or proportionate attribution). Hence, short-term mobility, whether caused by secondments, travel, or external constraints, does not automatically destabilize the entire jurisdictional computation. The integrity of the proxy is preserved precisely by translating mobility into an allocation outcome rather than a binary “substance failed” conclusion.

25. A noteworthy parallel can be observed in the UAE FTA’s Corporate Tax Returns Guide No. CTGTXR1. In the Free Zone schedules, the return template asks: “Are all employees located in a Free Zone?” and explains that “an indicator of where an employee is located would be where they spend the majority of their working time”. It reflects a similar administrative instinct: employee “location” is evidenced through a majority-time concept.

26. A further interpretive issue arises where the inability to return is itself force-majeure (for example, scheduled in-jurisdiction presence is prevented by flight cancellations or official restrictions). Even under GLoBE, the mechanics still depend on measuring the employee’s working time inside and outside the employer’s jurisdiction to test the 50% threshold and, where relevant, to compute the proportionate carve-out. The question for analysis is therefore whether (and on what evidentiary basis) time that was planned and objectively prevented can be treated as equivalent to time actually spent in the jurisdiction for these allocation purposes.

27. Even at a conceptual level, the SBIE is intended to exclude a fixed routine return on substantive factors that are comparatively “less mobile” and therefore serve as better proxies for real activity. Mobility is nevertheless recognized, and is addressed through allocation rules designed to preserve the integrity of that proxy. So, if an employee cannot return because flights are restricted, the technical GLoBE question becomes: where are the “eligible employees” treated as located for SBIE purposes during the relevant period?

28. A purposive reading supports allocating such time to the intended jurisdiction in narrowly defined force-majeure cases. The SBIE’s function is to preserve a stable proxy for substantive activity by attributing payroll to where the employee’s activities are expected to be performed for the employer’s business. Where the employee’s location is determined by external compulsion, mechanically allocating the affected working time to the jurisdiction of forced presence risks distorting the proxy by treating an involuntary interruption as if it were a deliberate redeployment of substantive activity – an outcome that can be damaging to the internal coherence of the Pillar Two design.

29. On this approach, “intended jurisdiction allocation” should not be automatic. It should be confined to circumstances where the taxpayer can demonstrate, through contemporaneous and verifiable records, that:

• the employee’s in-jurisdiction presence was scheduled or required by the role (e.g. rota, assignment letter, travel authorisation, office access booking);
• the inability to return resulted from an objective external constraint (e.g. airline cancellation notice, border (entry) restriction, official directive); and
• the arrangement was time-bounded, with demonstrable intent to revert as soon as feasible.

30. Framed in this way, the proposal does not displace the SBIE allocation rules. It applies them in a manner that protects their policy function in exceptional cases. The objective is to ensure that force-majeure displacement does not produce an attribution result that is disconnected from the underlying substance proxy that SBIE is designed to approximate.

31. This approach may find support through the OECD’s updated PE logic on cross-border remote work. Pillar Two can be read consistently with the PE principles, because both instruments, though technically different, serve the same structural purpose: assigning the relevant jurisdictional link for taxing (or measuring the tax base of) business profits and countering profit shifting where that link is artificially engineered.

31.1. In the 2025 Update to the OECD Model Tax Convention, the new Commentary on Article 5 (paragraphs 44.1–44.21) frames cross-border working from a home (or other “relevant place”) as a fact pattern that must be tested against whether the place is a “place of business” of the enterprise. The Commentary then introduces a prominent discriminator that is directly relevant to force-majeure displacement: whether there is a commercial reason for the activities to be undertaken in the State where the home (or other relevant place) is located.

31.2. Paragraph 44.11 states that a prominent consideration is whether there is a commercial reason for the individual’s activities to be undertaken in that State. It explains that such a reason exists where the individual’s physical presence in that State itself facilitates the enterprise’s business (e.g. access to people or resources in that State).

31.3. Paragraph 44.12 reinforces the same idea: the presence is commercially driven where the enterprise has a reason to have the individual physically present in that other State for the conduct of the enterprise’s activities, and the use of the home or another relevant place facilitates those activities.

31.4. Paragraph 44.19 then draws the negative inference: where there is no commercial reason for undertaking the activities in that other State, the place would not be a place of business of the enterprise (absent other facts and circumstances).

31.5. This PE logic is not merely about labels. It is about jurisdictional allocation discipline. It prevents the enterprise from being treated as having established a taxable business nexus in a country merely because an individual happens to be there, particularly where the enterprise’s business does not require that presence and did not intend to deploy the person there for business purposes.

31.6. That discriminator maps cleanly onto the SBIE force-majeure problem. If an employee is stranded abroad due to flight restrictions, the enterprise typically has no commercial reason to have the employee perform activities from that State. Indeed, the enterprise’s commercial intent is usually the opposite (planned in-jurisdiction presence, with interruption caused by external constraints). Under the PE framework, that absence of commercial reason is a strong signal that the enterprise should not be treated as having “located” its business there through that individual’s forced presence.

32. From a Pillar Two design perspective, the same logic supports allocating the disrupted working time to the intended jurisdiction (subject to strict evidentiary controls) rather than to the jurisdiction of forced presence. The SBIE payroll carve-out is a proxy intended to track substantive activity in the relevant jurisdiction; mechanically reallocating payroll factors to a jurisdiction where the enterprise had no commercial reason to place the employee risks producing the same distortion the PE Commentary is designed to avoid—treating an involuntary interruption as if it were a deliberate redeployment of substantive activity.

33. The argument is therefore one of consistency across anti-profit-shifting instruments: where the OECD’s updated PE standard treats commercial reason (business necessity) for physical presence as a key attribute for jurisdictional nexus in remote-work settings, it is coherent to treat the same attribute as relevant when interpreting how SBIE allocation should respond to force-majeure displacement, so that Pillar Two’s substance proxy is not undermined by externally compelled location outcomes.

34. The relevance of PE principles to the present discussion is reinforced by the OECD’s COVID-19 treaty guidance, discussed above, which expressly frames compelled cross-border remote work as a set of jurisdiction-allocation problems rather than as a set of taxpayer “fault” questions. This framework matters here because it treats compelled displacement as an analytical lens that can be carried into the Pillar Two SBIE attribution question when assessing whether forced presence should be allowed to reallocate payroll factors away from the intended jurisdiction.

35. In our view, where that guidance supports excluding certain compelled days or periods from jurisdiction-based time indicators (in the specific contexts addressed), the same analytical direction can be carried forward for SBIE: excluded time should be attributed to the intended jurisdiction, subject to strict evidence that

• the in-jurisdiction presence was planned or required by the role,
• the inability to travel was objectively compelled, and
• the arrangement was time-bounded with demonstrable intent to revert.

[1] Article 5.3.3 of the GLoBE Model Rules.

[2] Commentary to Article 5.3, para 25.

Practical risk management that fits the legal theory

36. If one accepts the purposive approach above, the practitioner’s task becomes to make the legal character of the displacement legible in evidence.

37. For UAE CT Free Zone cases, the most persuasive file typically has four layers:

CIGA map (what the CIGAs are, and why they are CIGAs for that qualifying activity), anchored to the “significant functions that derive the business value” concept reflected in professional analyses of the regime.

• Location narrative (how those functions are ordinarily performed in the Free Zone and who performs them).
• Displacement dossier (what happened, when, why it was compelled, and what management did to preserve Free Zone supervision and control).
• Reversion evidence (how and when normal performance resumed, or, if it did not, why not, and what structural changes were implemented to restore compliance, including Free Zone outsourcing where appropriate).

38. The latter two documentation layers are equally relevant for SBIE and for other displacement-driven allocation questions addressed in the OECD COVID-19 framework, including:

• home-office or dependent-agent PE risk,
• construction-site duration interruptions,
• residence tie-breaker sensitivity,
• employment-income cases involving stranded workers,
• cross-border (frontier) workers, and
• teleworking from abroad.

A file structured around “ordinary baseline – compelled deviation – time-boundedness – reversion” therefore supports not only Free Zone CIGA location analysis, but also SBIE payroll-factor attribution where the taxpayer needs to evidence that the employee’s forced presence abroad did not reflect a deliberate redeployment of substantive activity.

Ministerial relief as the “built-in valve” for disruption cases, and the post-2026 pathway for binding interpretation

39. A more internally coherent way to address force-majeure displacement under the Free Zone regime is to start with the Corporate Tax Law’s own mechanism for date management and continuity of QFZP status.

40. Article 18(2) contains the default rule that a Free Zone Person that fails to meet a QFZP condition at any time during a Tax Period ceases to be a QFZP from the beginning of that Tax Period. Article 18(3), however, creates an explicit safety valve: “Notwithstanding Clause 2 of this Article, the Minister may prescribe the conditions or circumstances under which a Person may continue to be a Qualifying Free Zone Person, or cease to be a Qualifying Free Zone Person from a different date”.

This drafting matters for disruption scenarios because it recognizes (at the level of the primary statute) that the “fail-from-start-of-period” consequence may be too blunt for certain fact patterns, and that the proper place to calibrate relief is a Minister-prescribed set of conditions/circumstances (or a different cessation date), rather than ad hoc interpretive stretching of the substance tests.

41. From a policy perspective, it would be desirable for this statutory valve to be operationalized expressly (by decision) so that time-bounded, compelled displacement (remote work urged by authorities, temporary travel impossibility, safety constraints) can be dealt with through objective criteria (proof of compulsion, documentation of intended in-zone performance, and reversion). Such a measure would strengthen certainty and reduce the risk that the same disruption facts produce materially different outcomes across taxpayers simply due to documentation style or audit approach.

42. If immediate ministerial calibration is not available, the 2026 reform of the Tax Procedures Law introduces a second, system-level route: the Federal Tax Authority’s ability to issue binding directives on the application of tax legislation. Article 54 (Bis) grants the FTA authority to issue binding decisions (directives) that provide instructions on how the Tax Procedures Law and other federal tax laws should be applied to tax transactions, with the stated aim of unifying interpretation and reducing inconsistencies.

In practical terms, this enables a binding interpretive decision to clarify how time-bounded, externally compelled displacement should be treated when applying location-anchored indicators (including, potentially, how “majority working time” indicators are evidenced where mobility is objectively prevented), without requiring the taxpayer to rely on informal comfort.

43. Taken together, these two tools provide a structured replacement for a purely technical “spirit of the law” conclusion substantiated above.

Disclaimer

Pursuant to the MoF’s press-release issued on 19 May 2023 “a number of posts circulating on social media and other platforms that are issued by private parties, contain inaccurate and unreliable interpretations and analyses of Corporate Tax”.

The Ministry issued a reminder that official sources of information on Federal Taxes in the UAE are the MoF and FTA only. Therefore, analyses that are not based on official publications by the MoF and FTA, or have not been commissioned by them, are unreliable and may contain misleading interpretations of the law. See the full press release here.

You should factor this in when dealing with this article as well. It is not commissioned by the MoF or FTA. The interpretation, conclusions, proposals, surmises, guesswork, etc., it comprises have the status of the author’s opinion only. Furthermore, it is not legal or tax advice. Like any human job, it may contain inaccuracies and mistakes that I have tried my best to avoid. If you find any inaccuracies or errors, please let me know so that I can make corrections.