The chinese economy in may 2013 Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The chinese economy in may 2013 - Research Paper Example According to a report by Anderlini, the rise noted in May is the eighth record of consecutive improvement of the economy with the expansion notable from the over 50% mark in the PMI. This trend implies that the Chinese economy is expanding and hence providing incentives to investors. HSBC manufacturing PMI was 49.2 in May, compared to 50.4 reported for April with a Median forecast of 49.6, which is actually a contradiction within the sector. Exports equally moved from 48.6 in April to 49.4 in the month of May (Anderlini, 2013, para 1-13). However, despite the notable slight expansion, IMF has lowered their expectation of the Chinese economic expansion from the initial 8% for this year to slightly lower figure of 7.75%. Hsu from the Taipei Times reports that HSBC speculates the current trends observable in the performance of Yuan currency, which will lead to full conversion of the currency by 2017. This is evident from the deliberate move by the government of China to increase flexibi lity of exchange rates and simplification of the cross boarder dynamics for business transactions (Hsu, 2013, para 1-6). With these speculations, the use of the Yuan currency would be more acceptable across borders, which would translate to higher economic performance. The cost price index (CPI) in China for the month of May 2013 recorded a decline from 2.4% to 2.1% and left low - the phenomenon was explained by the moderating food prices experienced, while inflation in service industry remained mildly at 2.8% for the month, because of salary and wage increases. The overall growth domestic product (GDP) for the month of May shows a slight reduction in comparison with the preceding month. This is partly explained by a notable reduction in investment within the property and manufacturing sector of the economy. However, there was a disparity in industrial performance with the tertiary industry remaining unchanged within the market, while the primary and secondary industries recorded a decline. The decline in PMI indicates a constriction in the general manufacturing sector as per the month (UOB Kay Hian, 2013, 2-7). Lower than 50% of PMI indicates that the economic manufacturing sector has constricted as compared to the preceding month, while a record of PMI (which is above 50%) is an indicator that the economy has expanded in that month as compared to the preceding one. According to ‘China Macro Flash† June 3rd 2013 publication, the notable 7.8%YoY GDP growth in 2Q together with the improved performance in PMI are negative indicators to investors that the government would not work on cutting the interest rates, as earlier forecasted with the prior performance (Cheng, 2013, 1; Anon, 2013, 4). Moreover, according the ‘Korea Macro Flash† June 3rd 2013 publication, the export growth in China for the period between April and May this year increased from 16.1% YoY to 16.6% YoY. China's exports rose by +1.0% in May from a year earlier, compared t o an increase of +14.7% reported for April (Karunungan and Kim, 2013). On the other hand, the import growth in China declined from 8.3% in April to 5.5% in May 2013 showing a negative improvement by 2.4 % YoY (Chang, 2013, 3). China's imports fell by -0.3% in May since the last year, compared to an

IKEA Marketing Plan Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

IKEA Marketing Plan - Research Paper Example A look into the present situation of IKEA is included in this plan along with other pertinent information that would help in deciding how to further develop the IKEA business, e.g., situation, product, competition and SWOT analyses along with the look into IKEA’s mission and vision and its financials. The analyses made in this plan showed that IKEA is indeed a strong brand to contend with and is capable of expanding and growing further. It offers products that consumers patronize and gives value to those products. Further expansion can be made and better plans for marketing the products of IKEA is currently being handled mainly through the use of technological advancement such as the use of the internet, phone applications and social networking. With all its achievements and with the goals it intends to achieve in the future, it can be surmised that IKEA has indeed achieved its aim of being a leader in its industry. Mission and Vision Statements IKEA started in Sweden and was founded on the concept that more people would afford well-designed and highly functional home furnishings at low prices. Kamprad is its founder and control the company through INGKA Foundation which has its headquarters in The Netherlands. The foundation owns INGKA Holding B.V., the company which owns IKEA. This organizational structure is the reason IKEA is not listed in the stock exchange (Tengblad, 2004). It is the vision of IKEA to offer many people a better living through affordable solutions. This is done through the company’s offering of a wide array of high quality and well designed products for home. More people are able to afford these home furnishings due to its low prices. It is the mission of IKEA to provide its consumers a wide array of home furnishings that are functional, well-designed, durable, high quality and low priced in order that more people can afford them (IKEA USA, 1999-2011). The company goes beyond just offering furniture. Instead, they offer custo mers comfort and better homes and lives. IKEA is cognizant of how home environment affects the well-being. This is it offers the kinds of furnishings that would enable individuals to have an attractive, practical and comfortable home without the need to spend a fortune. IKEA is a good example of an organization that managed to line up its values both in and out. Value proposition creates use in a company’s product as offered to its consumers (Bovet & Martha, 2000). It is what customers consider as an advantage when purchasing a product (Best, 1997). It is taken to be a bundle of value delivered to the consumers by the company (Sheehy, Bracey & Frazier, 1996). Value proposition includes such intangibles as image, brand and equity along with price, selection and service. This is going beyond just the product, i.e., it is not what the buyer is purchasing but what he thinks he is buying. The value proposition determines the duties of stakeholders as well as the offer to the organ ization (Webster, 1994). It serves as a selling proposition to potential buyers or the reason why buyers should patronize a company’s product instead of buying from its competitor. IKEA’s value proposition that serves as an attraction to buyers is its offer of affordable, functional and distinctly designed furnishings. This value is well communicated and implemented consistently. To allow the company to lower the price, buyers are the ones who

Principles of Australian Taxation Law

Principles of Australian Taxation Law Sita  Samtani Introduction This paper will critically discuss the proposals made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for a mandatory disclosure regime in Australia. In May 2016, the Australian Government sought input into the framing of the recommendations made by the OECD, in its Discussion Paper.[1] Mandatory disclosure rules are examined in the OECDs Final Report of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.[2] Primarily, these rules seek to combat aggressive tax arrangements, which pose a threat to revenue authorities worldwide. This paper will analyse the purpose and framing of these rules, their advantages and disadvantages and whom and what they should target, having reference to the Discussion Paper and other valuable sources. Additionally, there will be a critical analysis as to whether a mandatory disclosure regime would be an effective addition to Australian taxation legislation and how it may impact solicitors that advise on revenue law. Background Mandatory disclosure rules should be framed having regard to the integrity measures found in current legislation. A key point of distinction is discerning between lawful tax planning activity and unlawful tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is the focal point of the mandatory disclosure rules, lies between the two polarities. It involves entering into arrangements that exploit loopholes in the legislation.[3] Under Australian taxation law, there are a number of anti-avoidance measures already in place. These include specific anti-avoidance rules (SAARs), general anti-avoidance rules (GAARs) and a promoter penalty regime. There are many types of SAARs that target specific tax avoidance activities, for example, the Personal Service Income (PSI) rules and transfer pricing. On the other hand, GAARs (Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)) act as safety net or fall back provisions. Justice Pagone highlighted the fact that GAARs occupy a special role in tax law because their ro le is to underpin the effectiveness of the primary operative provisions when those primary provisions fail to achieve their purpose.[4] Additionally, the promoter penalty regime in Divisions 290 and 298B of Schedule 1 to the Tax Administration Act 1953 (Cth) seek to force promoters to disclose potential tax exploitation schemes. The promoter penalty regime bears resemblance to what a mandatory disclosure regime might achieve. Therefore, a key priority will be ensuring that a new regime does not unnecessarily overlap with existing disclosure rules.[5] It is vital to avoid duplication of and inconsistency with other legislation, as well as excess compliance costs on the vast majority of taxpayers who voluntarily comply with their tax obligations.[6] This regime must also be framed not to infringe on Australian legal rights such as confidentiality, legal professional privilege (LPP) and the privilege against self-incrimination.[7] It is essential that such legislation be shaped in a way that balances policy considerations, the integrity of revenue authorities and fundamental rights. Definition of a Mandatory Disclosure Regime A mandatory disclosure regime is a mechanism that requires taxpayers to disclose upfront to the tax administration system of the use of tax avoidance schemes with certain features or hallmarks.[8] According to the OECD, the purpose of mandatory disclosure rules is to require tax advisers to make early disclosure of aggressive arrangements (often before income tax returns are lodged) with the view to providing tax authorities with timely information on arrangements that have the potential to undermine the integrity of the income tax system.[9]This statement provides a useful matrix to ascertain the essential elements of a mandatory disclosure regime.[10] The purpose of a mandatory disclosure regime is to supply prompt information to revenue authorities of possible aggressive tax schemes and to identify the promoters and users of such schemes.[11] The purpose of this detection is to improve the effectiveness of compliance activities of tax authorities.[12] In regards to the core purpose of mandatory disclosure rules, the supply of early information would allows administrators to identify, address and counteract tax avoidance schemes in their initial stages before they escalate and potentially subvert the integrity of the revenue base.[13] This information can also be utilised to enhance and better focus existing audit processes.[14] Mandatory disclosure regimes can enable countries to quickly respond to tax avoidance risks by providing early access to potential avoidance schemes. The Policy Rationale of a Mandatory Disclosure Regime The main policy rationale behind implementing a mandatory disclosure regime in Australia is to bolster the current anti-avoidance mechanisms by allowing the Commissioner of Taxation prompt disclosure of potentially aggressive tax schemes. This in turn will prevent the exploitation of loopholes that exist within the tax system. These rules will provide the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with information as early as possible in relation to certain tax arrangements that are being designed and promoted by certain advisers and engaged in by certain taxpayers.[15] A further policy rationale of the new rules is to deter advisers and taxpayers from engaging in these types of arrangements in the first place.[16] In Australia, the current series of anti-avoidance legislation is elaborate, there are SAARs, GAARs and promoter penalty regimes which all seek to prevent the erosion of the revenue base. Table 1 of the Discussion Paper details the current legislation. There are a range of income tax disclosure rules in relation to large businesses and multinationals. These include disclosures made by companies both before (e.g. Advanced Pricing Agreements) and as part (e.g. Reportable Tax Positions) of their tax returns.[17] Mandatory disclosure rules should capture not only large entities but also high net-worth individuals or individuals that seek to exploit or promote the exploitation loopholes in the Australian taxation system. This is important to ensure a level playing field for all and so that the regime is ubiquitous. In relation to what activities a mandatory disclosure regime should exclude, it may be useful to look to what the GAARs (Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) do not apply to. The GAARsdo not apply to a typical husband and wife partnership business agreement. Under this set up, the couple conduct a business in partnership and as the relevant Partnership Act provides, share equally in profits and losses, despite the fact that only one party performs the main amount of work.[18] When regard is had to the eight matters in Part IVA, it would not be objectively concluded that the main purpose of the partnership arrangement was to obtain a tax benefit through the equal division of profits and losses.[19] Similarly, it is possible that a mandatory disclosure regime should not apply to these partnership arrangements for the same reasons. A comprehensive disclosure regime in Australia would give rise to several advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, a main advantage would be the expeditious identification of potentially aggressive tax planning schemes. This means that the ATO would have to spend less time and utilise less resources in order reduce tax avoidance.[20] Targeted groups would not be as likely to exploit loopholes which exist if Australia had a mandatory disclosure regime. This would firstly lead to enhanced audit and compliance activities which would ultimately lead to quicker dispute resolution in cases where tax avoidance is ascertained.[21] The rise of the technology has also lead to the proliferation of real time intelligence. The need for revenue authorities to access real time information is particularly critical in the current technologically advanced world, where transactions and information can be transmitted internationally and almost instantaneously.[22] Thus access to fast and accurate informat ion is vital for revenue authorities to monitor and police such transactions. The main disadvantage of a mandatory disclosure regime would be the difficulty in finding an appropriate balance between enhancing information available to the ATO to crack down on tax avoidance and avoiding unnecessary compliance burdens on tax payers.[23] In this regard, the legislation should be very clear on its face that the mandatory disclosure rules would only be triggered in relation to defined tax arrangements with specific features and the rules are targeted at advisers who are actively involved in these tax arrangements.[24] A tension also exists between legal professional privilege (LPP) and a mandatory disclosure regime.[25] LPP is sacrosanct in Australia and is referred as part of the functioning of the law itself.[26] If an entity is obliged to disclose a document that would be protected by LPP, the function of LPP would be undermined which may in turn be a breach of an Australian civil right. In Australia, there are already rules in place that capture and penalise activity by taxpayers and advisers that results in non-compliance with tax laws, particularly in relation to aggressive tax planning schemes. The mandatory disclosure rules adopted into the Australian tax system would therefore need to complement the other integrity measures already in the system. The Drafting, Framing and Targeting of a Mandatory Disclosure Regime Australias rules must be tailored for Australias circumstances and in particular to complement its pre-existing disclosure and anti-avoidance measures.[27] The introduction of a mandatory disclosure regime should be specifically directed at people who are required at law to disclose to the Australian Federal Commissioner of Taxation in relation to certain tax arrangements.[28] Who should disclose under a Mandatory Disclosure Regime? It is great importance that the legislation sets out the meaning of particular terms. The initial views of the Australian Government are that mandatory disclosure rules should apply primarily to tax advisers involved in the design, distribution and management of aggressive tax arrangements. Moreover, the Government is also of the view that where the relevant tax adviser is offshore, the Commissioner may instead require the taxpayer to make the disclosure.[29] The OECD has advised that the rules could apply to tax advisers, taxpayers or both. The mandatory disclosure rules should be narrow and targeted, so that the scope is not too wide to incorrectly identify the actual perpetrators of tax avoidance schemes.[30] Taxpayers will be caught under the mandatory disclosure rules where they have participated in arrangements that become the subject of mandatory disclosure.[31] However, as taxpayers already have a general obligation to disclose information about arrangements and transactions that give rise to tax implications for them, it is not necessary that a separate obligation to disclose be imposed on taxpayers under these rules.[32] Similar to the UK, the suggestion is that disclosure made should be by promoters of schemes with the onus only shifting to the tax-payer in certain situations. In line with the Australian Governments views, the new rules would have to provide a clear definition of tax advisers or promoters for the mandatory disclosure rules. It is logical that the obligation should be in line with promoter definition under the promoter penalty regime under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 as they already have significant obligations. Thus, it is possible that compelling promoters to disclose relevant information in relation to tax arrangements pertaining to the hallmarks would simply consolidate and extend their existing obligations under the promoter penalty regime. Additionally, the promoters of such schemes would be in possession of the information relevant to formation of such avoidance schemes. If this existing definition of a promoter under the current legislation was utilised, then an entity would be a promoter if: they encourage growth of a scheme, they receive consideration in respect of developing a scheme and if they have a substantial role i n advancing the scheme. It is important to note that an entity should not be regarded as a promoter just because they provide advice about a scheme. This is particularly relevant when it comes to legal professionals providing advice which will be discussed later in the paper. What types of arrangements should be targeted? The effectiveness of any disclosure regime will revolve around the drafting of hallmarks or the trigger points for disclosure.[33] It is impractical for a mandatory disclosure regime to target all transactions that raise tax avoidance concerns. Taxpayers will be obliged to disclose transactions that fall within the descriptions or hallmarks set out in a regime.[34] In the Discussion Paper, there is significant emphasis on the targeting of aggressive tax arrangements. However, there is little reference to what this actually means. Both the Canadian and the UK disclosure regimes target arrangements in which the main (or one of the main) purposes of the arrangement are in order to obtain a tax benefit. Under the general anti-avoidance rules, section 177D in Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 sets out factors relating to the schemes used to obtain tax benefits. This section has often proved difficult in its application because the factors are quite narrow. To avoid issues like this, a lower threshold should utilized under a mandatory disclosure regime. It would be preferable that the test should be whether one of the main purposes of the arrangement is obtaining a tax benefit.[35] This lower threshold would mean that a wider range of schemes could be identified and disclosed.   The Australian mandatory disclosure rules should also have an objective test for disclosure, meaning that the administrator would not have to inquire into the subjective state of mind of the taxpayer.[36] Additionally, the Australian Government may also want to consider whether an aggressive tax arrangement may be in line with the definition of a tax exploitation scheme under the promoter penalty rules.   The definition of a tax exploitation scheme is whether it would be reasonable to conclude that an entity that entered into the scheme has a sole or dominant purpose of acquiring a tax benefit in which it is not reasonably arguable that the benefit sought is or would be available at law.[37] The definition of tax exploitation scheme would likely be very similar to that of an aggressive tax arrangement under the mandatory disclosure regime. It would be most effective if mandatory disclosure rules target arrangements in which one of the main purposes is to obtain a tax benefit that may potentially amount to tax avoidance. This should be an objective test, for example, would a reasonable person believe that the arrangement might be in order to obtain a tax benefit that may potentially amount to tax avoidance? What are the benefits and drawbacks of providing the Commissioner of Taxation a broad discretion to determine what is an aggressive tax planning scheme? There are already a number of mechanisms through which information relating to aggressive tax arrangements is disclosed to the Commissioner. Currently, the Commissioner has the broad administrative powers to require the disclosure of information. However, in the case of the proposed mandatory disclosure rules, the Commissioner can require disclosure to be made without knowing who needs to make the disclosure.[38] It is important the mandatory disclosure rules require the Commissioner to have evidence of the tax arrangements that he intends to be disclosed pursuant to the rules before he can exercise his discretion and make a publication requesting disclosure.[39] Otherwise, if the Commissioners powers are too broad, the process may become ineffective and counter-intuitive. The Commissioner should clearly articulate why the arrangement is an aggressive tax arrangement in line with the objective purpose test.   This will then allow advisers to effectively determine whether they are involved in these arrangements and whether they have an obligation to make a disclosure to the Commissioner. In line with the Australian Governments view, the legislation should make it clear that mandatory disclosure rules would only be triggered in relation to aggressive tax arrangements with specifically described features.[40] This will ensure the disclosure rules can be limited to particular arrangements implemented by a specific targeted cohort, rather than imposing more general disclosure requirements on all taxpayers. What are the implications of early disclosure? An early disclosure regime would provide the ATO with information about aggressive tax schemes as well as the parties to such schemes. In comparison with the United Kingdom, the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime provides early information to Her Majestys Revenue Customs (HMRC). This information enables HMRC to legislate to amend the relevant taxation legislation to better target anti-avoidance activities.[41] The UK mandatory disclosure regime provides prompt information to the revenue authority allowing for easier identification of the users of anti-avoidance schemes.[42] The United Kingdoms DOTAS regime has successfully eliminated over  £12 billion in tax avoidance schemes and loopholes.[43] This is a strong indicator that such a regime in Australia may have the same effect. The UK regime has lead to over 2500 disclosures and the enactment of 60 different measures contained in the UK Finance Acts.[44] Similarly, a regime in Australia may guide in the legislating of better targeted SAARs and GAARs. It is likely that a similar disclosure regime in Australia would have a similar effect. The implications of early disclosure allow for revenue authorities to either use the information to improve risk assessment systems, review guidance and ruling products to determine suitable and contemporaneity, undertake additional educational programs and undertake case reviews and audits where appropriate or necessary.[45] Would mandatory disclosure rules be a necessary and valuable addition to Australian tax legislation? It is likely that a mandatory disclosure regime would be a necessary and appropriate addition to Australias existing anti-avoidance armoury. This paper weighs the advantages and disadvantages of such a regime and the legislative form that the regime should take. The necessity to acquire early information in regards to aggressive tax schemes is crucial to revenue authorities. While there are several ways that Australia acquires information now, it is possible that a mandatory disclosure regime is a more methodical approach. After researching the current anti-avoidance legislation, it is likely that the introduction of a regime would enhance rather than take the place of the current tax legislation. A key aspect of the implementation of a mandatory disclosure regime is the expeditiousness. These rules will allow for the ATO become aware of participators in aggressive tax avoidance schemes quicker which will in turn will prevent exploitation of the tax system. There are different ways in which tax administrations can use the collected information to alter behaviour and to counteract tax avoidance schemes, for example, risk assessments and changes to legislation.[46] There are arguments for the fact that given the plethora of disclosure rules already contained in the Australian law, there is little need for a mandatory disclosure regime to be introduced into the system. Particularly, the existence of the promoter penalty regime is fundamentally similar to what a mandatory disclosure regime may be like. However, cases such as Commissioner of Taxation v Ludekens Anors,[47]highlights that the scope of promoter penalty regime is quite limited.   In that case, Justice Middleton found that one of the parties was a promoter of the Plan within the meaning of section 290-60, but the other was not. However, it was held that the party that was a promoter did not contravene subsection 290-50(1) because his Honour found that the Plan was not a tax exploitation scheme within the meaning of section 290-65. Taking this into consideration, mandatory disclosure rules would likely assist with uniformity and the defining of certain key terms in the realm of tax-avoidance. Moreover, if a mandatory disclosure regime were introduced, the ATO would likely have early information on such schemes before they would need to be litigated. It may also be argued that Australian taxpayers currently only have limited disclosure obligations in relation to reportable tax positions (RTP) and certain international dealings via the International Dealings Schedule (IDS).[48] The introduction of a mandatory disclosure regime may be superior as a single comprehensive regime which would promote administrative efficiency, reduce compliance costs for taxpayers and avoid duplication with existing laws.[49] The Impact of a Mandatory Disclosure Regime on Legal Advice Mandatory disclosure rules would likely impact solicitors which advise on taxation law. Due to the fact that the term tax adviser is broad and vague, legislation would need precisely defined the term so that it is clear to which people the rules apply and the circumstances in which they would apply. In the past, lawyers who hold themselves out to be experienced in a particular area (for example, revenue law) the scope of their duty is quite wide. In the case of Tip Top Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd v Mackintosh,[50] the lawyer was held to have had a duty to give comprehensive advice to the client which touched on all relevant matters. This duty was held to include a duty not only to advise on whether the proposed transaction might come within the tax deductibility provisions of the legislation but also upon the possible application of the anti-avoidance provisions of the transaction.[51] This authority may be applicable if mandatory disclosure regimes come into play because lawyers advising on revenue law may need to provide advice about it. The relationship between a lawyer and a client holds confidentiality in the highest regard so there may be problems in regards to the mandatory disclosure of information. Australias rules must be designed not to infringe established civil rights such as confidentiality, legal professional privilege and the privilege against self-incrimination any more than is necessary or appropriate. In particular, any disclosures made must be on a without prejudice basis so as not to be used as evidence to that effect in proceedings involving the discloser or any other person.[52] Furthermore, there should be strict limits as to the use the ATO may make of the information.[53] There should not be a requirement to disclose previously comprehensively disclosed information and whether a disclosure is comprehensive ought depend upon whether it enables the Commissioner to identify the particular aggressive tax arrangement or the participation of the taxpayer in such an arrangement.[54] Conclusion The implementation of a mandatory disclosure regime in the Australian tax legislation would likely improve Australias anti-avoidance armoury. This new set of rules would improve and support the current mechanisms that are already in place by providing comprehensive and prompt information to the ATO.[55] By drawing upon other regimes such as that in the United Kingdom as well as examining the current views in Australia, this paper has considered how mandatory disclosure rules in Australia should be framed. The framing should take into regards the current tax legislation and also the impact on taxpayers. Furthermore, special contemplation should take place to ensure that the rules do not infringe on Australian civil rights and do not unnecessarily impact legal professionals that provide advise on tax law. A mandatory disclosure regime would significantly increase transparency, a problem faced by many tax jurisdictions. The introduction of mandatory disclosure rules in Australia would need to be incorporated logically into pre-existing legislation to ensure value and efficacy. Overall, it is likely that a mandatory disclosure regime would be a beneficial addition to Australian revenue legislation. Bibliography Articles/Books/Reports Australian Government, OECD Proposals for Mandatory Disclosure of Tax Information Discussion Paper (3 May 2016)https://treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2016/OECD%20Proposals%20for%20Mandatory%20Disclosure%20of%20Tax%20Information/Key%20Documents/PDF/OECD_proposals_mandatory_tax_disclosure.ashx> Australian Tax Office, Part IVA: The General Anti-Avoidance Rules for Income Tax (December 2005) https://www.ato.gov.au/assets/0/104/997/1030/6f068803-a0d3-406a-b7bc-4d44615af99f.pdf Australian Tax Office, Promoter Penalty Law (13 September 2016) https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Tax-planning/Promoter-penalty-law/ Carades, Stephanie,   Mandatory Disclosure Is it Necessary? (3 September 2016) http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=310740505898598;res=IELAPA Law Council of Australia, Submission to Australian Government, OECD Proposals for Mandatory Disclosure of Tax Information, 15 July 2016 https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/3172_-_Mandatory_Disclosure.pdf OECD, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Mandatory Disclosure Rules, Action 12: 2015 Final Report (5 October 2015) OECD, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project 2015 Final Reports Frequently Asked Questions (2015)   http://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-frequently-asked-questions.pdf Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, The Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes Regime: Paper 2 (3 December 2012) http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Business_Taxation/Docs/Publications/Reports/DOTAS_3_12_12.pdf Pagone, G.E, Part IVA: The General Anti-Avoidance Prov

Proposal College for Free :: Education School University Tuition Essays Papers

Proposal College for Free Dear Governor Bush: The demands of the workplace today are leaning toward a more educated employee. Many businesses are looking for degree holding, college graduates. Making it a must for today's youth to attend college to be in the running for a decent job. But to many students today, college is out of the question, solely due to the high tuition costs. Many high school graduates are forced to directly start a full-time job, because the money isn't there for college. The 1999 National Survey of Americas Families found that Florida is well below the national average on many economic levels. The Survey found that Florida has a large amount of children in families that experience worries about or difficulties affording food, children with no health insurance, nonelderly adults with no health insurance, and children with no usual source of health care. According to the Urban Institute, the median income for a family with children is $33,250, with 25.9% of Florida?s population having an economic level below poverty. The Chronicle of Higher Education estimated the average cost for a four-year public college tuition at $3,510 for an academic year. This does not include books, room and board, and transportation. Books and supplies estimated cost is $704, and room and board costs $4,960 for residents and $2,444 for commuters. In total, The Chronicle estimated the costs of an academic year at $11, 338 for a resident on campus, for a commuter the estimate is $9,229. If Florida families cannot afford health care let alone food, how can they afford to attend college? My proposal is to abolish the costs of tuition and books. A college education is essential in today?s society to obtain a well-paying job. For many families living in Florida, sending a child to college is virtually impossible. This leaves the child at a dead end, forcing him or her to work-full time with only a high school diploma at hand. The costs of college should be paid for by the government; in turn getting the money from taxpayers. I think taxes should be slightly raised in order for everyone to get a fair chance at an education. I don?t think many citizens of Florida would have much of a problem with their child getting a college education for free. Proposal College for Free :: Education School University Tuition Essays Papers Proposal College for Free Dear Governor Bush: The demands of the workplace today are leaning toward a more educated employee. Many businesses are looking for degree holding, college graduates. Making it a must for today's youth to attend college to be in the running for a decent job. But to many students today, college is out of the question, solely due to the high tuition costs. Many high school graduates are forced to directly start a full-time job, because the money isn't there for college. The 1999 National Survey of Americas Families found that Florida is well below the national average on many economic levels. The Survey found that Florida has a large amount of children in families that experience worries about or difficulties affording food, children with no health insurance, nonelderly adults with no health insurance, and children with no usual source of health care. According to the Urban Institute, the median income for a family with children is $33,250, with 25.9% of Florida?s population having an economic level below poverty. The Chronicle of Higher Education estimated the average cost for a four-year public college tuition at $3,510 for an academic year. This does not include books, room and board, and transportation. Books and supplies estimated cost is $704, and room and board costs $4,960 for residents and $2,444 for commuters. In total, The Chronicle estimated the costs of an academic year at $11, 338 for a resident on campus, for a commuter the estimate is $9,229. If Florida families cannot afford health care let alone food, how can they afford to attend college? My proposal is to abolish the costs of tuition and books. A college education is essential in today?s society to obtain a well-paying job. For many families living in Florida, sending a child to college is virtually impossible. This leaves the child at a dead end, forcing him or her to work-full time with only a high school diploma at hand. The costs of college should be paid for by the government; in turn getting the money from taxpayers. I think taxes should be slightly raised in order for everyone to get a fair chance at an education. I don?t think many citizens of Florida would have much of a problem with their child getting a college education for free.

Employment Law Compliance Plan Essay

Per your request, I was delegated the duty of developing the Employment Law Compliance Plan for Bradley Stonefield and his limousine company. Based on the meeting notes, Mr. Stonefield wants to operate a limousine company in Austin, Texas and to have at least 25 employees working for him within the first year. To ensure the success of Mr. Stonefield’s business, I have developed an employment law compliance plan that he should follow. This communication serves as confirmation of the employment laws that are relevant to Mr. Stonefield’s business. It will also provide how the employment laws should be executed and the consequences of noncompliance. This memo will give information regarding federal employment laws and regulations specific to Texas. The laws that will be discussed are The Texas Minimum Wage Law, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, The American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The Texas Minimum Wage Law Texas implemented the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour in July 24, 2009. Another provision of the law allows automatic increases in the minimum wage amount when the rate of the federal rate increases. The law also  mandates employers provide its employees a paycheck statement, which shows the number of hours an employee has worked (including overtime), the amount of pay they received, and any deductions. The Texas Minimum Wage Law aims to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and equally, regardless of where he or she may fall on the pay scale. Mr. Stonefield’s limousine company can comply with the Texas Minimum Wage Law by ensuring payroll is processed correctly. Additionally, the company should save records of all payroll, for the mandated period, for future references and ensure that the pay rates comply with the minimum wage law. Mr. Stonefield can purchase payroll specific software and individuals skilled in payroll processing to ensure compliance. The Texas Department of Labor enforces the Texas Minimum Wage Law. Individuals of the department of labor audit businesses to confirm the business is operating according to this law. If a business is found to be noncompliant, they could be fined up to $10,000.00 and criminally prosecuted. If the business is in violation for a second time, the business owner may be imprisoned. Penalties of up to $1,100.00 per violation can be executed to employers and businesses who repeatedly violate the minimum age requirement. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits discrimination in benefits, salary, and employment for employees who are age 40 and over. However, if the employer can validate that age is an occupational qualification, this law would not apply. The law is administered and executed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and â€Å"[a] key objective of the law is to prevent financially troubled companies from singling out older employees when there are cutbacks† (Cascio, 2013, p. 109). To comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Mr. Stonefield’s limousine company cannot deny employment or terminate an employee over age if the employee is of the age of 40 and over. However, if an individual lacks necessary skill functions or has poor performance, who happens to be the age of 40 or over, the company is within its limits to terminate the employee. Because age is not a determining factor, the company is justified  in terminating the employee. Noncompliance of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act can cause extensive financial damage to a company. A victim of age discrimination can obtain compensation, including attorney’s fees, court cost, and monetary compensation and punitive damages from the business. There are certain guidelines associated with the amount of compensation a victim can be awarded if age discrimination is proven. Mr. Stonefield is anticipating on employing up to 25 individuals to operate his limousine company. According to the EEOC, employers with 15-100 employees, the limit for compensation and punitive damages is $50,000.00 per claim. Additionally, if an employer: â€Å"resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with a duly authorized representative of the [EEOC] while it is engaged in the performance of duties under [this law] shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both† (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2013, SEC. 629). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was approved in 1990, which prohibits employers from discriminating against potential employees with disabilities. A qualified individual should be able to perform the essential duties of the job with or without accommodation. In Mr. Stonefield’s case, he would not be held responsible for not hiring a blind driver. However, if a blind individual has the qualifications to complete data entry job functions, Mr. Stonefield would need to make reasonable accommodations for the essential job functions. According to Cascio (2013, p. 111), â€Å"almost 13 percent of people ages 21 to 64 in the United States have at least one disability, a percentage that more than doubles to 30.2 percent for people ages 65 to 74†. It is also essential for Mr. Stonefield’s limousine location to be accessible for individual with disabilities (e.g. ramps, bathroom stalls, etc.). Additionally, Mr. Stonefield is not allowed to ask or discuss a potential employees past claims or medical history, as it would be in violation of ADA. The EEOC enforces the ADA; however, there are other avenues victims can make claims of discrimination (e.g. Attorney General’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, etc.). Violation of the ADA, in  connection with the Texas Labor Code, can be subject to damages payable to victims. These damages can include back pay, punitive damages, mental anguish, and pain and suffering (State of Texas: Office of the Governor, n.d., para. 7). Caps are provided for the amount awarded to victims of such discrimination and is based on the number of employees working for the business. In Mr. Stonefield’s case, if he is found in violation of the ADA and because he has fewer than 101 employees, his cap would be $50,000.00. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1985 sets conditions around employer’s inability to hire illegal aliens. Companies can be sanctioned, and fined and the law relates to every employee. This law essential for Mr. Stonefield to adhere to, as in 2012 there were an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrants residing in the state of Texas (SOLà S, 2013, para. 3). In order for Mr. Stonefield to comply with this law, it is essential he verifies the identity and the work status of all of the potential employees. Typically, most companies require new hires to fill out paperwork, such as an I-9, and obtain copies of identifiable documents (e.g. license, state issued identification, Social Security card, etc.). Companies that do not comply with this law can receive severe and harsh punishments and fines. According to Cascio, (2013, p. 110), â€Å"failure to comply with the verification rules, fines range from $100 to $1,100 for each employee whose identity and work authorization have not been verified†. Fines and penalties can range from $250.00 to $10,000.00 for each undocumented worker. Frequent or repeat offenders can be charged criminally. Texas law enforcement works with the federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act. Conclusion The employment compliance plan a general overview of the anticipated laws Mr. Stonefield’s limousine company can use to ensure the success of his business. Additionally, complying with the proposed employee compliance plan can save the company unnecessary expenses. Some of the most complicated  factors in establishing compliance with these laws are understanding the laws, knowledge of how these laws can affect the business, and the consequences if they are violated. As Mr. Stonefield will be operating a new company, it may be beneficial for him to hire a compliance officer to ensure he meets the necessary guidelines. References Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/1990s/ada.html Cascio, W. F. (2013). Managing Human Resources; Productivity, Quality of Work Life, Profits. McGraw-Hill. Solà ­s, Dianne. (23 September 2013). Illegal immigration into Texas increasing slowly, says Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130923-illegal-immigration-into-texas-increasing-slowly-says-pew-research-center.ece State of Texas: Office of the Governor. (n.d.). Employment Protections. Retrieved from http://gov.texas.gov/disabilities/resources/employment_protections

Profile of Top 5 CEO in the Philippines Essay

1.- Data show that 49-year-old Federico Lopez earns the most both in terms of monthly salary and total compensation in 2011. In the 30-company PSEi list, Lopez is head of two firms: First Gen Corporation (FGEN) and Energy Development Corporation (EDC). As Chairman and CEO of FGEN, his basic monthly salary is around P1.79 million. Yup, that’s P1.79 million basic salary per month. He receives another P1.19 million per month as bonus and additional compensation. All in all, he gets more than P3 million every month as FGEN’s chief executive. The same position in EDC gives him an additional P1.4 million every month. Considering only these two companies, Lopez earns roughly P4.4 million monthly — more than any other CEO on the list. – Federico Rufino Lopez is the incumbent Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the publicly-listed Energy Development Corporation. He also heads the First Philippine Holdings Corporation and First Generation Corporation as their Chief Executive Officer. Lopez serves as Director of other Lopez-owned companies including ABS-CBN, Lopez Holdings Corporation (formerly Benpres Corporation), and First Private Power Corporation. – Lopez serves as the Chairman and CEO of Energy Development Corporation. Within the board, he serves as Chairman of Nominations and Compensation Committee, Chairman of Corporate Social Responsibility Committee and Member of Operations Committee. He has been a Board Member since the company’s privatization in 2007. – Lopez serves as the Chairman and CEO of Energy Development Corporation. Within the board, he serves as Chairman of Nominations and Compensation Committee, Chairman of Corporate Social Responsibility Committee and Member of Operations Committee. He has been a Board Member since the company’s privatization in 2007. – Prior to that, he served Vice President of First Philippine Holdings Corporation in September 1992, and oversaw the development, financing and implementation of its energy-related projects. He then served as the Assistant Treasurer in 1993. – At present, he is also the Chairman and CEO of First Gen Corporation and First Philippine Holdings Corporation (FPHC). He is also a director of ABS-CBN, First Private Power Corp., and Bauang Private Power Corp. He also serves as director, President and CEO of FG Bukidnon Power Corp., First Gen Hydro Power Corp., First Gen Energy Solutions, Inc., Red Vulcan Holdings Corp., Prime Terracota Holdings Corp., First Gas Holdings Corp., First Gas Power Corp., FGP Corp., Unified Holdings Corp., First NatGas Power Corp., and First Gas Pipeline Corp. – Lopez has been a member of the Energy Task Force since 1993 promoting market reforms in the power industry. He is also an environmentalist, serving as the President of the First Philippine Conservation, Inc. and a Director of Conservation International. 2. The sixth richest Filipino, Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, is the second-highest paid CEO on the list. As Chairman and CEO of the conglomerate Ayala Corporation, he earns more than P2.42 million total compensation every month, inclusive of a monthly basic salary of P1.66 million. – Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala (born 1959) is a Filipino businessman. He currently serves as chairman and chief executive officerof the Ayala Corporation. His brother, Fernando Zobel de Ayala, is president of the corporation, while his father, Jaime Zobel de Ayala, was president until 1994 and currently holds the title of chairman emeritus. -In addition to his position in the Ayala Corporation, Mr. Zobel is chairman of the Board of Directors of Globe Telecom, Bank of the Philippine Islands, and Integrated Microelectronics Inc. (IMI); vice chairman of the Board of Directors and member of the Executive Committee of Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI); vice chairman of Manila Water Co.; and co-vice chairman and trustee of Ayala Foundation, Inc. He is also a member of various international and local business and socio-civic organizations including the J.P. Morgan International Council, Mitsubishi Corporation International Advisory Committee, Toshiba International Advisory Group, Harvard University Asia Center Advisory Committee, Board of Trustees of the Asian Institute of Management, National Council member of the World Wildlife Fund (US), and Chairman of World Wildlife Fund (Philippines). Honors include World Economic Forum Global Leader for Tomorrow in 1995; Emerging Markets CEO of the year in 1998 (sponsored by ING); Philippine TOYM (Ten Outstanding Young Men) Award in 1999 and Management Association of the Philippines Management Man of the Year Award in 2006. Most recently, Mr. Zobel was awarded the Presidential Medal of Merit on March 11, 2009 by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for â€Å"enhancing the prestige and honor of the Republic of the Philippines both at home and abroad.† – On September 27, 2007, Ayala Corp. chair Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala was conferred the Harvard Business School’s highest honor, the Alumni Achievement Award, byDean Jay O. Light. The award was also given to: Donna Dubinsky, A. Malachi Mixon of Invacare, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP Group and Hansjorg Wyss of Synthes. Zobel de Ayala received his MBA from HBS in 1987. Zobel de Ayala was cited for â€Å"his innovative, entrepreneurial style of management (that) has benefited both Ayala and an island nation that faces significant social and economic challenges. He is the first Filipino to receive this prestigious award. – The Philippine Legion of Honor with rank of Grand Commander was awarded to Mr. Zobel on June 29, 2010. This is awarded by the President of the Republic of the Philippines to recognize outstanding public service that has benefitted the republic, particularly in the preservation of the honor of the country and in nation building. – On November 25, 2010, Mr. Zobel received the Asia Talent Management Award at the 9th CNBC Asia Business Leaders Awards held in Singapore. Mr. Zobel was recognized for â€Å"his personal involvement in supporting and nurturing leadership within the company.† Zobel was quoted as saying that he and his brother Fernando Zobel de Ayala, president and COO of Ayala, consider succession planning as a critical element in ensuring the corporation’s sustainability. He was the third Filipino to be recognized by the annual program, following Globe Telecom CEO Gerardo Ablaza, Jr. who received the ABLA in 2004, and Jollibee CEO Tony Tan Caktiong for corporate citizenship in 2006. – Mr. Zobel holds a B.A. degree in economics (cum laude) from Harvard College (1981), and an MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration (1987). He is married to Elizabeth (Lizzie) Eder Zobel, a descendant of Santiago Eder. The couple have four children. -3. Manny Pangilinan or MVP is Chairman and CEO of three companies on the list, making him the third-highest paid CEO with a combined total compensation of P2.65 million per month. This is inclusive of his monthly basic salary of P1.76 million in those companies. His basic salary is P950,000 per month as head of Meralco; more than P588,000 per month as chair of Metro Pacific Investments Corp. (MPI); and around P230,000 every month as CEO of Philex Mining Corporation. – Manuel V Pangilinan (born July 14, 1946 in Manila, Philippines), also known as Manny Pangilinan and MVP, is a Filipino businessman. He is the Chairman of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, from 1998 up to the present. – Pangilinan spent his elementary and high school days at San Beda College. He graduated cum laude from the Ateneo de Manila University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. He received his MBA degree in 1968 from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.] He is also the owner of ABC/TV5 network, Cignal Digital TV and Smart Communications. He was the former Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Ateneo de Manila University. – Pangilinan founded First Pacific in 1981 and served as its Managing Director until 1999. He was appointed as Executive Chairman until June 2003, when he was named CEO and Managing Director. Within the First Pacific Group, he holds the positions of President Commissioner of P.T. Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk, the largest food company in Indonesia. He was named Chairman of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), after serving as its President and CEO until February 2004. He also serves as Chairman of Maynilad Water Services, Inc., Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation, Medical Doctors, Inc., Metro Pacific Investments Corporation, Landco Pacific Corporation, Pilipino Telephone Corporation, Smart Communications, Inc. and Manila Metro Rail Transit System. -4. Another highest-paid chief executive is Danding Cojuangco of San Miguel Corporation. As CEO of the diversified conglomerate SMC, he gets P1.58 million salary per month plus P746,000 additional compensation monthly, for a total of P2.33 million every month. – Eduardo Murphy Cojuangco, Jr. (born June 10, 1935), also known as Danding Cojuangco, is the chairman of San Miguel Corporation, the largest food and beverage corporation in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, former Philippine ambassador, and former governor of Tarlac. In 2005, his personal wealth was estimated at US$527 million.It was estimated that, at one time, his business empire accounted for 25% of the gross national product of the Philippines. He has been called â€Å"one of the country’s leading businessmen†. – He was a candidate for the Philippine presidency in 1992, ultimately losing in a tight election to Fidel V. Ramos. Ramos received 23.6 % of the vote. Miriam Defensor Santiago came in second with 19.7% and Cojuangco came in third with 18.2%. – He tested the political waters in 2003, planning to run in the 2004 Presidential and Local Elections, but soon withdrew. He was a close adviser and personal friend to former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which led him to become estranged from his cousin,Corazon Aquino, who after Marcos’ ouster succeeded him as president. Cojuangco is of partial Irish, Spanish, and Chinesedescent.[citation needed] – Cojuangco was a member of the Rolex 12, a group of 12 men who were closest to Marcos and allegedly were his enforcers of Martial Law. He is also an honorary member of PMA Class 1951. Cojuangco also was accused by the military men at the scene ofBenigno Aquino, Jr.’s assassination, as the leader who orchestrated the crime. – He is currently the chairman emeritus of the Nationalist People’s Coalition, the party he founded in 1992 which served as his vehicle to further his aspirations in the 1992 presidential elections. – He was also an advocate for sports in the country through using his company as sponsors for various events. He is notable for supporting basketball in a huge way since the 1980s as a basketball godfather for President Marcos with the famed Northern Consolidated teams of coach Ron Jacobs and the three SMC owned teams currently playing in the Philippine Basketball Association (the flagship Petron Blaze Boosters, the Barangay Ginebra Kings, and the B-Meg Llamados). – He studied at San Beda College, De La Salle University, University of the Philippines, Los Baà ±os and California State College. – Besides English and Tagalog, he speaks Ilocano, the dialect of his mother and Kapampangan, the original dialect of the Cojuangcos. -5. James L Go, Chairman and CEO of JG Summit Holdings (JGS), Universal Robina Corp. (URC) and Robinsons Land (RLC) — total compensation of P1.82 million per month, roughly the same as his basic monthly salary – James L. Go, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of JGSHI. He had been President and Chief Operating Officer of JGSHI and was elected to his current position effective January 1, 2002. As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, he heads the Executive Committee of JGSHI. He is currently the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Robina Corporation, Robinsons Land Corporation, JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation, Robinsons Inc., and Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation. In addition, he is the President and a Trustee of Gokongwei Brothers Foundation, Inc. He was elected director of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) on November 3, 2011 and was also appointed as a member of PLDT’s Technology Strategy Committee. He is also a director of Cebu Air, Inc., Panay Electric Co., United Industrial Corporation Limited, Singapore Land Limited, Marina Center Holdings, Inc., Hotel Marina City Private Limited and JG Summit Capital Markets Corporation. He received a Bachelor of Science degree and a Master of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.