Financial Analysis for Fair Value Measurement -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theFinancial Analysis for Fair Value Measurement. Answer: Multinational companies can affect their financial position by applying the hedging strategies that can affect the overall risk position of the company. There are many ways of hedging that can be applied that includes both long term hedging techniques and short-term hedging techniques. Long term techniques include two-way currency swaps, one that occurs at the time of inception of the loan contract and one that happens with the banks when the swaps gets multiplied(Dichev, 2017). It all depends on the prevailing market rates if these swaps would be profitable or not and whether it would increase or decrease the risk element for the multinational companies. In case of hedging the companies are securing themselves against a negative event that might occur, given the overall scenario in which the interest rates might increase or decrease. The main aim of the company should be to make sure that when they are going for any swap option that involves higher currency exchange rates difference they must choose such counter parties in which the overall risk element is low(Abbott Kantor, 2017). The future markets should be analyzed beforehand so that in situations where there are higher risk elements present the company can necessary steps beforehand. The company must always take expert advices when going for such hedging options, this will help them in securing themselves against unforeseen situations in which the overall rates might increase. A lot depends on the economic conditions of the country whether or not the hedging would be beneficial or not for long term success(Alexander, 2016). References Abbott, M., Kantor, A. (2017). Fair Value Measurement and Mandated Accounting Changes: The Case of the Victorian Rail Track Corporation. Australian accounting Review. Alexander, F. (2016). The Changing Face of Accountability. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411-431. Dichev, I. (2017). On the conceptual foundations of financial reporting. Accounting and Business Research, 47(6), 617-632.

Writing a Sample Columbia Journalism Grad School Personal Essay

Writing a Sample Columbia Journalism Grad School Personal EssayThere are many questions on how to write a sample Columbia Journalism grad school personal essay. Some questions are like what to write, and some are like why do you want to do this.First, you should be prepared to take on any personal essay you get handed in, but you should also be prepared to be guided by the guidance of your instructor. It's also important to note that not every person you meet is going to be helpful or qualified to write a sample Columbia Journalism grad school personal essay.The fact of the matter is that there are so many things that go into writing a personal essay for an individual student. It can be difficult to write a standard four-page essay, and it doesn't always work out this way for everyone. In fact, many of the worst essays you will ever have to write are likely from someone who did not read and follow directions carefully.One of the first things you need to understand is that when you do write a personal essay, you are writing for yourself, not for anyone else. Remember that a Columbia journalism grad school personal essay is written for one particular person. When you write for others, you risk hurting their feelings and in many cases, writing for them will lead to you having to re-write your entire essay.The best advice for writing a personal essay is to write for yourself first. Then you can start thinking about the reader. As with all things you should remember that you are the one writing your personal essay, not anyone else.You should try to think about what kind of personal essay you want to write, and then you should try to think about how you will write it. Don't worry if you cannot think of anything in particular, and don't be afraid to not have a very specific idea in mind.If you follow these tips you should be able to write a personal essay without much trouble. Keep in mind that the most important part of writing a personal essay is you - so whatever y our purpose is, it is your essay.

Legal Process The Pursuit of Victory Versus the Pursuit of Truth free essay sample

Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once remarked that if he were innocent he would prefer to be tried by a civil law court, but if he were guilty he would prefer to be tried by a common law court. Since â€Å"the facts† are an important (absolutely fundamental) premise in reaching any practical conclusion about parties’ legal responsibilities, the fact-finding – or rather the fact-proving – structure of a legal system has a very significant effect on the outcome. Although academics can discuss problems from an omniscient â€Å"eye of God† perspective, the real world cannot; if a party cannot â€Å"prove† a fact to whatever standard, and by whatever means, the legal system requires then it might as well have never happened. Early legal procedures attempted to overcome this handicap by relying on divine intervention to protect or support the party in the â€Å"right† – methods of proof that we would now find distasteful and unacceptable. We will write a custom essay sample on Legal Process: The Pursuit of Victory Versus the Pursuit of Truth or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Every legal system must therefore work with a reconstructed model of reality, the content of which is determined by the rules of procedure and evidence (but which should ideally furnish the most accurate approximation possible of what actually happened? ) The processes for establishing your legal rights, and providing remedies for breaches of them, do in a very practical way determine what your rights actually are in any given case. In the Liberal Democrat model outlined earlier, we now expect that that these processes will be fair and consistent with the ideals of a just system. There are two major systems for establishing fact in world legal systems: †¢ the Anglo-American adversarial (or accusatorial) system, and †¢ the Continental inquisitorial system (also referred to as the civil law) system which applies in most of the non-English speaking countries of Europe. There are, however, no purely adversarial or purely inquisitorial systems in existence;  rather there are hybrids which are to a greater or lesser degree adversarial or civil law in nature. All enlightened evidential systems are probably honest attempts to discover and protect the truth, and we should perhaps think of these alternatives as reflecting a fundamental (but not mutually exclusive) difference in approach which, in a large measure, determines the procedural and evidential processes that apply in the courts and affect the prospec t of ascertaining â€Å"the truth† in proceedings. The rival systems differ fundamentally on a key method of investigation and adjudication: reliance on the accused to furnish testimonial evidence of their guilt. The essential character of these systems was summed up by the New Zealand Law Commission in 1996 in these terms: Adversarial systems require the judge to be an impartial arbitrator of facts presented in evidence by the parties to proceedings, and imply some degree of equality between the parties. These systems are also known as accusatory, so named because a person or representative of the community makes an accusation of criminal offending against a suspect. †¦ Inquisitorial systems are systems of justice in which the judge has an investigative as well as an adjudicative role and proceeds with an inquiry on his or her own initiative (unlike adversarial systems where the parties conduct investigations and present the evidence). The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, A discussion paper Hence the cryptic description of the difference as The Pursuit of Victory versus The Pursuit of Truth. The United Kingdom and France differed in the path that they took. At this time the court systems of both England and Europe used an adversarial system to determine who could be tried for a crime and whether they were guilty or innocent (though it lacked many, indeed most, of the hallmarks, processes and safeguards of modern adversarial systems; because of the difficulties in deciding cases, procedures such as trial by ordeal or trial by combat were accepted as legitimate ways of finding truth or settling a dispute). Unless a person were caught in the act of committing a crime, they could not be tried for a crime until they had been formally accused, either by the voluntary accusations of a sufficient number of witnesses or by an â€Å"inquest† convened specifically for that purpose(an early form of grand jury). Because it relied on the voluntary accusations of witnesses, and because the penalties for making a false accusation were severe, witnesses were often hesitant to actually make their accusations to the court, for fear of implicating themselves.. In 1198, Pope Innocent III began a reformation of the ecclesiastical courts and established the Inquisition; under this new process, an ecclesiastical magistrate no longer need a formal accusation to summon and try a defendant, but could summon and interrogate witnesses under oath on his own initiative and if their testimony accused someone of a crime, then that person could be summoned and tried. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council affirmed the use of the inquisitorial system and forbade clergy from holding or assisting at trials by ordeal and combat. Confession was the essential component of the inquisitorial system employed by the ecclesiastical courts. The inquisitional oath was a sworn promise by the person under inquisition to tell the truth in answer to any question put by the court – a refusal to answer or to give a sworn statement was regarded as a confession of guilt. The purpose behind the oath was to extract a confession and the sworn statement was frequently demanded without informing the defendant of the substance of the complaint, the incriminatory evidence, or the identity of his or her accusers. In England, however, from 1160 onwards, Henry II had established separate secular courts. While the ecclesiastical courts of England, like those on the continent, adopted the inquisitional system, the secular common law courts continued to operate under the adversarial system, and the adversarial principle that a person could not be tried until formally accused continued to apply for most criminal cases. In 1215 this principle became enshrined as article 38 of the Magna Carta. In the United Kingdom the common law courts eventually achieved supremacy over the ecclesiastical courts (which were thereafter limited to matters of succession, marriage and divorce and were eventually replaced by secular courts). The inquisitorial process, however, did not finally disappear from the English system until the abolition of the â€Å"Court of Star Chamber† in 1641 (by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for the misuse and abuse of power by the king and his supporters to suppress opposition to royal policies). The common law took the position that an accused should not have to incriminate him or her self by way of either an oath or information extracted through torture and must, accordingly, have the right to remain silent. (The right to remain silent was established in the United Kingdom in the 17th Century in the Case of John Lilburne, 1638) The â€Å"privilege† (as we now call it) against self-incrimination, or â€Å"the right to silence† has come to be seen as a fundamental right and there are many ancillary related doctrines that flow from this such as the presumption of innocence, the placing of the burden of proof upon the prosecutor and the standard of proof required (beyond reasonable doubt). This is also the justification for the development of the right to cross-examine an accuser. In modern inquisitorial systems, by contrast, the accused can be required to make a statement – it is usually not under oath, and he/she cannot be cross-examined on it, so it allows them to â€Å"explain† their position without any aggressive interrogation by an opposing counsel. Modern inquisitorial systems developed after the French Revolution and spread throughout Europe and many African, Asian and South American countries – they are, in fact, more numerous than the adversarial type system of the US and Commonwealth countries. The parties are contestants; due process and the  rules of evidence (including the right to silence) have been designed to ensure that the contest between the parties is conducted fairly. There is a presumption of innocence and the accuser must prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt without the compelled assistance of the defendant. The rules of evidence are designed to ensure that only relevant and reliable information is presented to the court, rather than irrelevant information or information the proof value of which is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The judge (and jury) knows nothing of the litigation until the parties present their case and arguments. The presiding officer plays a passive role (like an umpire in a tennis match and the outcome is determined by the skill of the players). There is an emphasis on equality of the parties because the truth is said to be best discovered by contested assertions on both sides of the question and the contest of evidence. [This is a valid methodology for the discovery of truth in any discourse – in legal proceedings however, the methodology is warped by the fact the parties are not sharing a common pursuit or testing of the truth: see The Adversary Method in Law and Philosophy by Dixon, on Learn]. A frustrated judge in an English court finally asked a barrister after witnesses had produced conflicting accounts, Am I never to hear the truth? No, my lord, merely the evidence, replied counsel. Practical Guide to Evidence Peter Murphy In criminal proceedings, the accuser has the onus of proving the accusation beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, whether through ill-preparation or simply a lack of evidence, the State loses its case. The approach is essentially the same for civil trials, except that the burden of proof is lower – the judge has only to be convinced â€Å"on the balance of probabilities†. The adversarial system is also criticized by some because it cannot as satisfactorily resolve complex business, scientific and technical issues as could, say, a panel of experts given the authority to make scientific or technical findings or, say, a Commission of Enquiry into a matter of general public importance. Since the parties have considerable control over the line of inquiry and the issues to be addressed, the conclusion reached by the court cannot be necessarily equated to an objective reality. The point was recently well made in these words by an English judge at the start of his judgment in a recent complex. A lawyer assisting a client with the resolution of a dispute must keep the client advised of alternatives to litigation that are reasonably available (unless the lawyer believes on reasonable grounds that the client already has an understanding of those alternatives) to enable the client to make informed decisions regarding the resolution of the dispute. HIGH COURT RULES 2009 [NEW ZEALAND] 1. 2 Objective The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding or interlocutory application. DISTRICT COURTS RULES 2009 1. 1 Title These rules are the District Courts Rules 2009 1. 2 Commencement These rules come into force on 1 November 2009. Part 1 Preliminary provisions 1. 3 Objective 1. 3. 1 The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding or interlocutory application. The objective of these rules includes, so far as is practicable,— (a) ensuring that all parties are treated equally; and (b) saving expense; and (c) dealing with the case in ways that are proportionate to— (i) the importance of the case; and (ii) the complexity of the issues; and (iii) the amount of money involved; and (iv) the financial position of each party; and (d) ensuring that the case is dealt with speedily and fairly; and (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. 1. 4 Courts to give effect to objective The courts must give effect to the objective of these rules when they— (a) do any act under these rules; or (b) interpret these rules. 1. 5 Application of rules 1. 5. 1 These rules apply to— (a) civil proceedings taken in a District Court under the District Courts Act 1947; and (b) unless otherwise provided in these rules or any other enactment, othe r civil proceedings taken in a District Court or before a Judge. 1. 5. These rules do not apply to proceedings to which the Family Courts Rules 2002 apply, namely— (a) proceedings in Family Courts; or (b) proceedings in District Courts acting under— (i) section 151 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989; or (ii) section 15 of the Family Courts Act 1980. 1. 5. 3 Nothing in this rule prevents the parties in a civil proceeding from applying to the court or a Registrar for an order under rule 1. 7 directing the parties to settle their dispute by mediation or other alternative dispute resolution 1. 6 Application of High Court Rules 1. 6. 1 These rules apply specified High Court Rules (for example, by listing them in the style â€Å"HCR 5. 36— authority to file documents†) and the intention is that each High Court Rule applied by these rules applies with the modifications (if any) indicated in these rules and with the other modifications necessary for District Courts. 1. 6. In general, modifications are necessary because— (a) there are jurisdictional differences between District Courts and the High Court: (b) District Courts have offices and the High Court has registries: (c) a proceeding (other than one in admiralty or defamation, or to enforce an arbitral award) will be started by filing a notice of claim, and subsequently the proceeding will follow the procedure for responses, information capsules, and notices of pursuit of claim unless a court grants leave for the parties to follow the High Court procedure for statements of claim or originating applications: (d) new forms called information capsules are to be exchanged by the parties: (e) judicial settlement conferences and judicial directions conferences are provided for under these rules rather than case management conferences. 1. 6. In applying a High Court Rule that uses a term or expression that is defined in these rules (for example, court), the term or expression has the meaning given by these rules unless these rules otherwise provide or the context otherwise requires. 1. 6. 4 In applying a High Court Rule that refers to another provision of or to a form prescribed by those rules, that other provision or form also applies for the purposes of these rules unless these rules otherwise provide or the context otherwise requires. 1. 6. 5 For example, in High Court Rules applied by rule 3. 44 of these rules (service generally),— (a) a reference to a statement of claim will have to be read as a reference to a notice of claim if the proceeding is or has been pursued under rules. Reference to a statement of defence will have to be read as a reference to a response if the proceeding is or has been pursued under those rules. 1. 7 Mediation or other alternative dispute resolution 1. 7. 1 The parties in a proceeding may apply at any time to the court or a Registrar for an order directing the parties to attempt to settle their dispute by an agreed form of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution specified in the order. 1. 7. 2 The court or Registrar may make the order only by consent of the parties. 1. 7. 3 The fact that the parties are actively pursuing settlement may be taken into account by the court or Registrar in considering an application by 1 or more of the parties for an extension of time under rule 1. 18.

Compare readings - Smart Custom Writing Samples

Compare readings - Smart Custom Writing Lacan?s Mirror StageAccording to Jacques (214), the mirror stage occurs when a baby, starting from six months finds out its own reflection in the mirror. The infant will then revolve towards the grown-up that is grasping it and begs that adult to prove with her or his appearance what it sees in the mirror that is the picture of a mastery not yet attained. The mind or consciousness can be categorized into three major patterns that control our lives and our needs. The three categories include the real, the imaginary and the symbolic order. Many of Lacan’s conditions for the occupied complication of the mind’s mechanism can be associated to the three main ideas that connect generally to the three major moments in the person’s growth as sketched in the Lacan’s module on psychosexual growth. The real order or perception is the state of nature from which we have been ceaselessly detached by our way into verbal communication and it is a period of wholeness which is later lost through the access into language (Jacques 195). This state of nature is a state of needs satisfaction and it involves the neo-natal kids that have no intelligence for any division between them and the outside world. An example related to this kind of state is an animal that is on heat as it refers to a need that is followed by a hunt for satisfaction.   This state goes on to apply its power throughout one’s adult life, as it is the astound against which all an individual’s desires and linguistic formation eventually fall short. The imaginary stage matches to the mirror stage and marks the movement of the issue from original need to command.   It is mainly self-centered even if it locates the period for the fantasies of wish.  Ã‚   For example as the kid starts to identify that its body is disconnected from its mother’s world it starts to experience nervousness that results from a feeling of something lost(Groves 320).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Lastly, the symbolic stage involves language and narrative whereby as the kid goes into language, agrees the system and becomes able to handle others. This stage is made possible after acceptance. For example when the child accepts the name of the father he identifies the help of meaning and role of the symbolic stage (Groves 52). Work Cited Jacques, Lacan. The Mirror Stage.   New York: W.W Norton publishers. 2002. pp. 132-347 Groves, Leader. Introducing Lacan. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books Publishers. 200. pp.47-430

RESPONSE ESSAY SUMMARY SHEET Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

RESPONSE SUMMARY SHEET - Essay Example paper analyzes some common negative externalities, as well as possible ways through which government intervention may control and regulate these externalities. The study conducted in this paper is based upon a case study of the wastewater management system in Australia. The analysis of negative externalities in this case study is better approached by tackling the following three questions: 1. Explain what negative externalities are, and why there may be the case for government intervention to address them. Describe some of the ways to correct the negative externalities and the pros and cons of each method. Provide real life examples. An externality occurs when some activities by consumers or producers result in unintended direct or indirect effects over other unintended players in the market. Externalities may be negative or positive (Laffont 2008). In this case, negative externalities arise when the action of a party results in damage to other people without any form of compensation being awarded for that damage. Within the context of a business environment, a negative externality refers to a spill-over of an economic transaction that result in negative effects on a party that has no any direct involvement in the activity that causes the externality. Thus, the first party does not incur any costs for the repercussions on society while the second party gets no benefits from the effects inflicted upon them. Externalities constitute one of the many reasons that lead to government intervention within the economic sphere. Thus, it is because the production, consumption, as well as investment decisions made by households, individuals, and organizations or firms usually affect people who are not directly involved in the transactionsMost externalities fall into the technical externalities category. In this context, the indirect effects impact on the production and consumption opportunities of other people, though the cost of the product or service does not consider

Nurse-Authored features that use Web 2.0 applications Assignment

Nurse-Authored features that use Web 2.0 applications - Assignment Example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605032/ While the use of media can be very important to the nurses and other providers of health care there have been more concerns about the use of the social media. Indeed, the use of Web 2.0 tools may derive legal or ethical issues. The use of Web 2.0 tools may jeopardize the privacy and confidentiality of both the employers and the patients. Nurses can breach privacy and confidentiality by posting a photo of the patient on the social medial or comment about a patient (Younger & Morgan, 2011). According to an American research, it is eminent that several nurses have been exposing their patient’s information on public websites. The nurses ended up facing disciplinary measures for their actions. It is also unprofessional for the nurses to use Web 2.0 tools inappropriately. For instance, a nurse can use the media to bully a colleague, this results from online criticism of colleagues. This breaches the code of conduct. This behavior can result in taunting the image of the healthcare professions (Younger & Morgan,

The Effects of Tax Avoidance

The Effects of Tax Avoidance Summary Tax avoidance has been a major menace in many governments worldwide. Therefore, this article will focus on tax avoidance by multinationals and the tax loopholes that motivate this unfair practice among nations. Companies such as Starbucks, HSBC, Google, Barclays bank and Amazon have been accused on more than one occasion of corporate tax avoidance. How do they go about this and get away with it? Do governments favor big corporations at the expense of domestic small and mid-level companies? At the end of this article, it will be clear and evident that indeed tax avoidance is morally wrong unless monitored under stringent government rules and regulations. In essence, this article focuses on the extent to which tax avoidance limits government expenditure (thus government spending) and the extent to which this problem affects the economy and society as a whole. The Moral violation of Tax Avoidance in a nutshell In these hard economic times of recessions and escalating unemployment in Europe and America, governments are implementing budget cuts in an effort to cope with national debts and the aftereffects of this global economic pandemic as a whole. Inflation reports have become the business norm of major mainstream media houses like CNN and BBC. It has become almost impossible to hear of a rise in employment levels or deflation in prices. What this means in essence is that as governments implement budget cuts, they also result to internal borrowing measures such as increasing taxes on goods and services in their respective local markets. At the end of the day, the ordinary hard-working citizen is left to grapple with how to balance an increasingly insufficient paycheck with ever-increasing prices of goods and services. It is because of this reason that tax avoidance shifts the tax burden from the evasive and tricky corporation to the honest middle and low income earning citizen. This is clearly a sign of tax bias practiced in broad daylight. The sad bit about this is that many governments don’t have stringent measures to punish such big ‘untouchables’. Is it that someone within is pulling the strings to ensure that justice isn’t upheld? Are these mysterious government entities ‘sufficiently compensated’ by tax avoiding multi-national corporations for a ‘job well done’? Because the interesting bit about tax avoidance is that it doesn’t amount to tax evasion. For instance, in 2011, the Google firm in the UK had amassed a whooping 395 million pound turnover. But as it turns out, the United Kingdom treasury only received 6 million pounds; an astoundingly tiny fraction of the profits. Similarly, Amazon had sales of 3.35 billion in the same year but contributed a mere 1.8 million pounds to the British Treasury . As absurd as these two randomly picked incidences sound, what these companies did was legal. Essentially, no laws were broken despite the moral absurdity of such obvious, draconian and potentially ‘tax evasive’ actions. Why aren’t there any laws to address such malice? Does it mean that someone is not doing his job and is being paid by these multinationals to keep quiet? Because at the end of the day, money is power thus more money translates to more power; to control, to manipulate, and eventually, to destroy economies and thus the society as a whole. The problem with tax avoiding firms is that their global market presence translates to humongous profits. This of course means too much money and thus too much power. And unfortunately, their power exceeds that of many government officials who are more than willing to do their devious bidding for that ‘extra pound’. Just taxation practice is based on the tenets of fairness and equality across the board not just within the circle of multinationals, but also within economies as a whole. The entire population has got to be convinced that the burden of tax is evenly spread across varying income levels and corporate profits. Tax avoidance by ‘the elite’ however brings about unnecessary tension due to economy class favoritism that’s making someone bear more unjust burden than he ought to. When the citizenry sees such tax injustices, then it’s bound to demand for the law to curb such dubiously lawful menaces. Facts supporting the moral absurdity of tax avoidance and how some countries are curbing the menace Tax avoidance potentially amounts to financial impunity. Incorporated tax laws with gaping holes and obvious loose ends are the biggest aids of tax avoiding multinationals (Samuel, 2005). In essence, firms are subject to business taxes whereas individual income earners are subject to personal taxes. For firms to practice tax avoidance in business taxes, they usually relocate their branches to offshore tax havens thus registering as alien business entities offshore. This makes firms avoid generating income onshore more and more with every alien business subsidiary that they register offshore. Thus, American based Google and Amazon avoid paying taxes in the UK by being classified and registered as non-resident business entities. This entitles them to avoid being taxed not only as resident businesses, but also as resident alien businesses. This is despite the fact that they enjoy all government rights and services similar to resident businesses in the host offshore havens. This in turn makes them pay less taxes to the American tax collector, also known as the IRS. FTSE 100 firms and Banks based in the UK are also key culprits in this menace, with 38% of their subsidiaries located in tax havens. High street banks such as The HSBC, Barclays bank, Lloyds and IBS have a combined total of 1,649 companies (Action Aid). A unanimous FTSE company is claimed to have transferred pricing payments so as to enable a whopping 100 million pound shift from subsidiaries based in developing country into tax havens where a ridiculously lower tax rate is incurred. A lack of stringent regulations on transfer pricing leaves loopholes for tax avoidance as taxable profits move to tax havens without breaking any law. Luxemburg, Liechtenstein principality, Delaware State, Nauru and Cayman islands are in fact the leading offshore tax havens that are menacingly unregulated and house profits that extend to dealings in drugs and arms trade. While in host offshore havens, these multinationals are usually private and secretive in regards to their finances thus raising eyebrows in regards to the integrity of their financial reports. The ignorance, inability and inexperience of developing countries such as China, India and Brazil to deal with the tax avoidance menace further aggravates the situation (Phyllis, 2003). This also brings in the problem of the inability to measure precisely how much worth of tax avoidance has been practiced in these countries. Multinationals are actually taking advantage of this by rapidly expanding their offshore investments to the detriment of offshore haven governments which don’t benefit from such investments as they ought to. For instance, the budget deficit for the Chinese government amounted to 3% of its GDP. Also in Mexico, it’s estimated that a whooping 40% of its entire citizenry might be untaxed (Gori, 2001). This goes to show how the citizenry in itself can be its own worst enemy when it comes to combating tax avoidance within resident businesses (Das-Gupta 1995). India has also been a victim too considering the fact that tax revenue percentage of GDP dropped sharply from 9.8% in 1991 to 8.95% in 1999. Exploding liberalization in these developing countries has sparked massive inflow of foreign investments. In fact, when direct foreign investment recipients are considered by merit, Brazil, China and Mexico have been at the zenith of this list for the past ten years. European, American and Japanese multinationals have been the biggest contributors to this direct foreign investment inflow thus playing key role in the growth of these developing economies. Interestingly enough, the local businesses have not enjoyed the chunk of foreign trade since related multinational firms in these tax havens control a majority of foreign trade (Chan, 1998). They do this by exercising sophisticated profit shifting mechanisms via manipulation of prices to dodge stringent measures enforced upon foreign exchange hence significantly cutting down on uncertain socioeconomic outcomes. In essence, intermediaries and basic raw materials are over invoiced while at the same time exports are underpriced thus enabling record tax avoidances. The Chinese open-door economic reform has made it maintain its enviable position as the greatest absorber of foreign direct investment (FDI) among developing nations to date. For instance, according to the 2002 United Nations Economic report, China got 28% of all FDI flowing into developing nations in 2001. The year 2002 was particularly good for FDI enterprises in China as 409,000 foreign investment enterprises were approved with a net worth of 425 million USD. Consequently, foreign direct investments in China have been key to its economic growth. The evidence is quite clear when it’s considered that 52% of China’s imports and 50% of its exports can be attributed to foreign investment enterprises (FIEs) within the country. Yet strangely enough, a resounding majority of these foreign investment enterprises is reporting record losses despite expanding at an astronomical rate. This automatically entitles them to avoid taxes. Tax avoidance escalated sharply in 2000 with a record $1.22 billion worth of noncompliance being reported ( Ming, 2001). This sparked a sharp rise in tax related audits in 2001. Brazil on the other hand exercises some fairness in taxation by taxing local and alien enterprises similarly. In fact, tax rules and laws applied to limited liability companies and corporations alike are similar irrespective of whether the firm is resident or non-resident. This is because foreign enterprises prefer taking the forms of corporations and limited liability companies. But interesting to note is the fact that limited liability companies aren’t obliged to disclose their financial reports to the public. However, corporations possess the comparative advantage of raising capital through IPOs (Initial Public Offers) of the share capital. Brazil has however come under sharp criticism as having a sophisticated taxing mechanism that hinders its business competitiveness globally. Despite this obstacle, the country has proven to be less naà ¯ve when it comes to dealing with tax avoidance incidences by adopting the principle of ‘If you can’t beat them, then join them.’. This is because it has taken advantage of tax avoidance tendencies by FEIs by offering tax incentives for establishment in distinct underdeveloped regions. For instance, a 50% tax cut on income is offered by the Brazilian government to industrial and agricultural enterprises that establish themselves in the marginalized and less developed North East and Amazon regions. In addition, a firm that sparks development in industrial technology has the right to an incentive on technical services and a 50% tax credit discount on royalties. Expatriates who have achieved the status of Brazilian residents are also obligated to pay a progressive income tax on their worldwide paycheck up to a maximum of 27.5%. This is because taxation upon individuals is implemented on cash basis. A factor to consider is that expatriates are considered residents if they’ve domiciled in Brazil for more than a year. Brazil also tackles tax avoidance by taxing a 25% withholding tax on nonresidents living in tax havens compared to a 15% withholding tax on those who don’t. This is because nonresidents are entitled to royalties, dividends and interest. When it comes to transfer pricing, proper laws that are compatible with OECD have been enacted to ensure the proper determination of import and export prices. Conclusion The rationale behind payment of taxes is that we owe a duty to three entities; namely to the state, the community, and last but not least, to God. Therefore in as much as tax avoidance is morally unjustified and inexplicable, it is distinctively clear that governments worldwide should take the initiative to curb this menace. Better still, governments can take advantage of the situation and enact sound laws that create morally acceptable tax avoidance, such as tax incentives and tax breaks offered by the Brazilian government to develop marginalized areas and to spark innovative development. That way, an equitable tax basis is maintained and society is generally happy to share the burden of tax on the basis of a non-secretive, convincingly just and morally acceptable manner. Work Cited Jesse A. Schmitt Legal Off Shore Tax Havens: How to Take LEGAL Advantage of the IRS Code and Pay Less in Taxes Atlantic Publishing Company, 2008 Phyllis Lai Lan Mo Tax avoidance and Anti-avoidance Measures in Major Developing Economies Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Alain Deneault Offshore: Tax Havens and the Rule of Global Crime New Press, Jan 24, 2012 Samuel Blankson Tax Avoidance a Practical Guide for UK Residents Lulu Press Incorporated, 2005. Ronen Palan, Richard Murphy, Christian Chavagneux Tax Havens: How Globalization really Works Cornell University Press, Feb 1, 2013