The Pros And Cons Of Mncs In Vietnam

On 26 July 1950, President Harry Truman approved a multi-million dollar military assistance package designed to help the French defeat a strong communist movement in French Indochina. The package included $15 million worth of military equipment and a small number of American military advisors assigned to supervise the flow of tanks, plans, artillery, and other equipment.1 By 1954, the United States government had provided 80% of the war supplies used by the French in Indochina which equated to about $3 billion.2 This marked the beginning of the United States involvement in Southeast Asia and the expansion of the military-industrial complex in America. This paper will explore the role the American military-industrial complex played as part

When President Nixon took office in 1969, the U.S. was currently sending american troops to fight in the Vietnam war.Shortly after taking office in 1969, President Nixon introduced a policy called Vietnamization that was intended to end american military involvement in Vietnam war by encouraging all south vietnamese to take more responsibility for fighting the war on their own.

However, the companies only have to pay the U.S. tax for foreign revenues once they bring the profits back to the United States. As a result of these current tax laws, U.S. companies that seek to avoid high corporate tax rates hold their foreign earned profits overseas. “It just makes no sense to pay a substantial tax on it,” said Joseph Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (Rubin, R.). It is far too easy for an IT corporation to create a patent in a foreign country and direct revenue to a corporation within that country, thus avoiding the much higher U.S. tax rates. According to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the lost revenue is increasing over time as corporations find even more creative ways to make their U.S. profits look like offshore income (Richards, K., & Craig, J.). As result, multinational American corporations have as much as $2 trillion held in overseas subsidiaries and if brought into the United States with the current tax laws, the federal government could benefit by nearly $50 billion per year.

The main objective of many companies is to minimize their tax obligations. Jeffers (2014) discussed the reason of why companies adopt tax inversion strategies. The researcher indicated that the income maximization is a major reason of companies attempting to reduce their tax liability (pp. 100-101). Tax inversion strategies provide companies an advantage to lower income tax rate. Today, U.S. corporations renounce its U.S. citizenship and move to low-tax countries. Companies that reincorporate oversees are not obligated to pay U.S. taxes on earning income (p. 99). Many countries implement tax competition strategies to attract and retain businesses. Well-known companies, such as Exxon Mobil, Hewlett Packard, Tyco, General Electric, PepsiCo, etc. take benefits of tax shelter opportunities overseas (p. 102). Other benefits of the jurisdiction abroad are flexible banking laws and simplified litigation processes.

However, the introduction of such a law becomes increasingly difficult when the companies being questioned are some of the largest and wealthiest in the world. In order to truly understand the stature of these companies, one would need to look into some of the statistics regarding them. Remarkably, according to Al Jazeera America “the largest 500 U.S. companies would owe an estimated $620 billion in U.S. taxes” if they had to declare all their overseas stockpiles, of around $2.1 trillion (“Al Jazeera America”). In addition, it found that “three-quarters of the 500 biggest companies utilize tax havens”. The top three offenders included Apple, General Electric and Microsoft. In many cases according to the report, the money is not being utilized to improve foreign economies. By this they mean to say that, U.S. businesses were not using their overseas profit to build factories and employ individuals. Instead, the overseas profit was a result of accounting tricks purposely implemented to benefit the business alone. To put all of this in perspective, the United States is losing billions of dollars to foreign economies. These taxes are being introduced into countries such as Ireland and Luxembourg. In other words the money that should be invested in the United States of America on public services, is being

➢ Taxation – firms functioning when dealing with a different country the subject to that country’s laws and regulations.

Americans may ponder the thought of struggling economy barely gaining momentum while corporations have witnessed some of the largest quarterly profits ever recorded. The driving force behind the extreme profits gained by many corporations is simply put as tax inversion. Tax inversion is nothing more than an American firm combining with a foreign firm in a country with beneficial and lucrative tax laws (Financial Times, 2014). The American headquarters will now be moved to the new foreign firm where they will enjoy the lower taxes and evade the taxation of the United States government (Financial Times, 2014). More and more American firms have been taking advantage of inversion while still being able to enjoy sales in the American market.

The recent introduction of the hybrid entities has shielded the foreign firms from paying their appropriate taxes through the shielding of the taxable income and through using the foreign tax amounts on the other incomes (Messina, 2015). In this regard, only minimal taxes are remitted from the revenue generated by the local firms. Besides, people tend to evade tax charged on dividends and interests by not giving honest reports pertaining to the revenue generated abroad. Furthermore, individuals evade the taxes through transferring their funds to foreign accounts. Fortunately, the IRS can address the issue of tax evasion by changing the existing tax laws to remove the deductions and other restrictions, for instance, the foreign tax credits. Besides, it is vital to impose restrictions to curb tax evasion at a personal level through the desired policies of better information reporting and tougher penalties for the

When a company decides to enter in Vietnam has to take into account diverse factors. First of all, the mode of entry ( with an import agent, a representative office, a business cooperation contract, a process contract or a joint venture) with its advantages and disadvantages and, in case of needing a partner, making the right choice.

Intercompany transactions could occur across national borders, it would lead MNC companies to get more exposure to the differences of the tax regulations between countries. This might lead MNC companies to set up their objective to minimize their taxes through the use of discretionary transfer prices. These issues are attracted the attention of the member of the U.S. senate, foreign governments and international organization such as the OECD, G20 and European Union (EU).

The actions of multinational corporations (MNCs), which derive from their morally dubious goals, may be completely legitimate within a capitalist society. One of these actions that will be examined in this essay is the use of tax havens, as a way of avoiding higher tax liability. This paper will utilise the case study of Apple’s tax avoidance, in examining the legitimation of a company’s goal of profit maximisation, a goal that is against the moral/social consensus

The objective of MNC to operate in other countries is to gain competitive advantage through several ways. Firstly, MNC is able to take advantage of difference in country-specific circumstances. For example, MNC may choose to locate its productions in less developed country like Vietnam to gain cheap labor cost. Secondly,

In comparison with the number in developed countries, €9 per hour in the UK for example, no wonder why big multinational companies all over the world have been trying to outsource to Vietnam. There are many factories along the country which are manufacturing final products for world top multinational companies. Nike, Adidas, Panasonic, Toyota, etc., all place their factories in Vietnam. In fact, when one goes shopping in Europe, it is no surprised to see a product of a famous brand with the “Made in Vietnam” label printed on it . Moreover, according to some latest research, Vietnam has a young population. It can lead to a more effective working force, compared to countries which have an old population, such as Finland and Japan. In the last decades, the literacy rate of Vietnam has been increasing steadily, from 88% in 1989, 90% in 1999 to 93,5% in 2009. More people get a bachelor’s degree nowadays, which leads to the improvement in the worker’s skill. Offering not only a strong flow but an efficient working force, Vietnam has been attracting more investors every year.

International Trade is the trading of products and administrations between nations. This kind of exchange offers ascend to a world economy, in which costs, or supply and request, influence and are influenced by worldwide occasions. Companies which goes international have to adapt to the host environment as it is significantly different from the home environment. Home environment is simply defined as the company’s local or place of origin, while host environment is defined as the foreign country the firm is entering. In this assignment I will be choosing and evaluating the host environment perspective, Malaysia as the host country and how the host country government policies encourage foreign investments in Malaysia. Foreign Direct Investment is basically defined as a process to acquire ownership of assets or expending a company 's control of assets through cross border expenditure (Froot, 1993). In this assignment further evaluated would be the policies and programmes that Malaysia have put forth to encourage foreign investment. Income Tax Act 1967, Excise Act 1976, Promotion of Investments Act 1986, Sales Tax Act 1972 and Free Zone Act 1990 tax, tax incentives provided by Malaysia, in the areas such as manufacturing, agriculture, tourism and approved service sectors, R&D, training and environmental protection (www.mipca.com.my, n.a). Where total or partial relief of income tax is granted under direct tax incentives, and various exemptions in the area of import duty, sales

1. Abstract 2. International tax law & its sources 3. Brief history of International Tax Law 4. Who gets the pie? 5. Arm 's length principle : Cornerstone of International Tax Law 6. Transfer pricing methods 7. Problems with of source taxation of MNE 's 8. Internet & e-commerce : Achilles heel of current International taxation regime? 9. Formulary Apportionment (FA) 10. Existing uses of Formulary Apportionment systems in the world 11. Developing countries & Formulary Apportionment 12. Critique of Formulary Apportionment 13. Transfer pricing and Formulary Apportionment : One continuum 14. Conclusion 15. Acknowledgements 16. References