Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Английский для экономистов. Учебное пособие
.pdf
интересные вещи вроде бесплатной аренды помещений, софинансирования
(государственный рубль на рубль ИП) и так далее.
ИП тоже может применять ОСН (общую систему налогообложения).
Это актуально для торговли и b2b-сферы в целом. Правда, такой бизнес
предполагает большие обороты и, соответственно, потенциальные долги;
соответственно, ограниченная ответственность становится критичной.
Поэтому ИП, работающие по
ОСН, встречаются редко.
В большинстве регионов впервые зарегистрированным ИП
предоставляются налоговые каникулы, то есть в определенных сферах
первые пару лет они не платят налоги. Правда, это не распространяется на
взносы, а также на предпринимателей, работающих по ОСН.
Когда юридическое лицо ликвидируют, оно исчезает навсегда. Из-за
этого государство тщательно проверяет каждый
случай: не осталось ли
невыплаченных налогов, недовольных сотрудников или обиженных
кредиторов. В отличие от компании, ИП не исчезает, а остается в
доступности как для кредиторов, так и для государства, поэтому при
закрытии его практически не проверяют. Если работников не было, ИП
просто пишет заявление в ИФНС и продолжает жить, как
обычный
гражданин (выплачивая 13% НДФЛ вместо 6% УСН).
Административные штрафы. Их платят все: несданная отчетность,
ошибки в кассовых операциях, неправильное ведение трудовой книжки и
прочее – совершенно невозможно вести бизнес без штрафов (если ты не
бухгалтер). Так вот: штрафы, предусмотренные для граждан, намного ниже,
чем штрафы для организаций; ИП относится к гражданам, и штрафы
для него
ниже в десятки раз.
ИП регистрируется по домашнему адресу, в отличие, например, от
акционерного общества. Чтобы прийти к ИП с обыском, необходимо иметь
решение суда (не то чтобы это было основной причиной становиться ИП, но
все же).
271
Итак, к чему мы пришли? Юридическое лицо приспособлено к
ведению бизнеса в долях. В качестве дополнительного бонуса предлагается
ограниченная ответственность. Однако для государства предпочтительнее
ИП: их легче контролировать и невозможно потерять. Поэтому условия
регистрации, ликвидации и прочих бюрократических процедур у ИП проще.
Так что подумайте над тем, нужна ли вам ограниченная
ответственность
ценой сложной ликвидации и ограничений по выводу денег.
Part 3
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE
Congress is again taking up the issue of foreign investment in U.S.
infrastructure, nearly one year after the United Arab Emirates-owned company
Dubai Ports World set off heated debate with its purchase of a company that ran
U.S. ports. Dubai Ports World eventually sold its U.S. operations to an American
company, but the central issues of the foreign ownership debate remain far from
settled. These questions include how to balance economic openness with national
security and how much control foreign companies should be allowed to have over
U.S. infrastructure. Right after the Dubai Ports World controversy, Congress
proposed the sweeping National Defense Critical Infrastructure Protection Act,
aimed at blocking foreign-owned companies from purchasing or operating critical
infrastructure. That bill never passed. Meanwhile, increased publicity has only
added to the burdens on the U.S. panel charged with monitoring incoming
investment, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),
which received 73 percent more filings for review in 2006 than it did in 2005.
A bill pending approval in the House Financial Services Committee aims to
set up a panel to oversee the operations of CFIUS. The panel would span twelve
separate government agencies and be headed by the Treasury Department.
According to February 7 testimony by Clay Lowery, the Treasury Department’s
assistant secretary for international affairs, two primary qualms with the bill come
272
from the Bush administration. These are: 1) its requirement that only the two
senior-most officials at CFIUS can certify the completion of a review; and 2) a
requirement mandating a secondary 45-day investigation of any review involving
businesses owned by a foreign government.
Some business groups have shared the basic concern that an overly stringent
review process could scare off incoming foreign investment. A January 2007 study
by the National Foundation for American Policy, a think tank promoting free
market research, concluded that CFIUS’s increased restrictions following Dubai
Ports threaten to dampen incoming foreign investment. But Barney Frank (D-MA),
the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has insisted that the pending
legislation is sensitive to these concerns. «We will treat you and your money very
nicely–that is the message of this legislation», Frank said at a recent committee
hearing, addressing foreign investors.
The fears over foreign entities owning critical infrastructure generally stem
from the belief that foreign companies do not have as vested an interest in security
as U.S. firms. Traditionally, U.S. officials have taken measures to keep sensitive
military technology and the production of defense-related goods under the control
of American companies. But since 9/11, there has been an increasing concern that
foreign ownership of certain U.S. infrastructure could make the United States more
vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
The most pressing concerns arise when a state-owned foreign company will
have a hands-on role in operations. «The issue is less about ownership and more
about management», says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of CFR’s
Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. While Holtz-Eakin
acknowledges that there are legitimate security concerns, it is his view that foreign
companies, state-owned or private, should be free to earn money from critical U.S.
infrastructure provided they do not have direct operational control. Todd Malan,
chief executive officer of the Organization for International Investment, echoes this
view, explaining that «ownership is a small part of a given vulnerability».
273
The formerly low-profile CFIUS has assumed a tougher posture toward
foreign firms seeking to invest in U.S. critical infrastructure. According to a
January 2007 report (PDF) by the National Foundation for American Policy,
CFIUS’s workload is now far bulkier than it was a year ago: The committee
reviewed 73 percent more filings in 2006 than it did in 2005, and had seven
second-stage investigations in 2006, as compared to two in 2005. This jump has
calmed some nerves, but has also prompted concerns that the agency’s newfound
vigilance will scare off foreign investment. Business groups have objected to the
restrictions that have been placed on some high-profile companies from ally
countries. When the French company Alcatel recently purchased Lucent
Technologies, for instance, CFIUS approved the purchase but imposed significant
provisions allowing for the deal to be ripped apart retroactively should the U.S.
government see fit. A joint venture by the German company Siemens and the
Finnish company Nokia to combine their mobile and landline telecom networks
has come under similar scrutiny, further bristling business leaders.
David Marchick, who co-authored a July 2006 CFR Special Report on
foreign investment and national security, says that «attracting foreign investment is
in itself a national security imperative of the United States because foreign
investment is critical to the vitality and strength of our economy». With the U.S.
trade deficit in excess of $725 billion in 2005, a steady influx of money from
foreign investors is a necessity. As part of a process known as «in-sourcing»,
foreign companies employ some 5.3 million American workers in the United
States. On average, these workers earn 34 percent more than workers at similar
U.S.-owned businesses. Furthermore, foreign companies operating within the
United States produce more than 21 percent of all U.S. exports, Malan says.
Welcoming foreign investment is also a fundamental tenet of U.S. trade
policy. The aim is to open investment opportunities for U.S. companies abroad
while at the same time creating a more stable international system and provide
equal opportunities within U.S. borders. «It has been a deep belief of the United
274
States that by taking leadership in economic openness...nations would be knit
together», says Holtz-Eakin.
Much of the legislation seeking to implement controls on foreign investment
focuses on foreign firms which own «critical infrastructure» within the United
States. The Patriot Act defines critical infrastructure as systems and assets so vital
to the United States that any breakdown in them «would have a debilitating impact
on security, national economic security, national public health, or safety». The
National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key
Assets (PDF), submitted by President Bush in 2003, outlines eleven sectors of
critical infrastructure: agriculture and food, water, public health, emergency
services, defense industrial bases, telecommunications, energy, transportation,
banking and finance, chemical industry and hazardous materials, and postal
services and shipping. The «key assets» identified in the report are: national
monuments and icons, nuclear power plants, dams, government facilities, and
commercial key assets.
The country with the most holdings in the United States is the United
Kingdom, followed by Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the end of
2004, the sum of all foreign assets in the United States had an estimated market
value of $2.7 trillion, though only 2 percent of these holdings are owned by state-
run companies. Foreign companies’ holdings are most concentrated in the
manufacturing sector, but they also extend into several of the eleven «critical»
areas identified by the Bush administration. In the energy sector, British
Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Venezuela’s state-owned Citgo all have
holdings within U.S. borders. Finland’s Nokia and Sweden’s Ericsson are major
telecommunications providers; French-owned Sodexho U.S.A. is the largest food
service company in the United States, and even serves meals on Marine Corps
bases; and the largest private security firm operating in the United States,
Securitas, is based in Sweden.
Middle Eastern entities (excluding Israel) bore the brunt of the ire
surrounding the Dubai Ports World purchase. These entities account for about 0.5
275
percent of foreign investment in theUnited States. However, these companies have
some high-profile holdings, including New York’s Plaza and Essex House hotels,
the Caribou Coffee Co., and the aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Industries, Inc.
CFIUS is made up of twelve members, each from a different government
agency. The Secretary of the Treasury chairs the committees, but other members
include representatives from the departments of State, Defense, Homeland
Security, Justice, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the National Security
Council.
When the Treasury Department receives notice that a foreign company
wishes to purchase a U.S. company or property, it puts in motion a thirty-day
review during which each member of CFIUS considers the effects of the purchase
on its own jurisdiction. The reviewers have at their disposal the full resources of
the U.S. intelligence community. Any concerns raised during the review trigger a
45-day investigation, at the end of which CFIUS makes a recommendation and the
president has fifteen days to make a final decision.
CFIUS was originally established in 1975 to monitor the impact of foreign
investment. In 1988, Congress passed the Exon-Florio provision of the Defense
Production Act, giving the president the authority to block foreign acquisitions on
the grounds of national security. The president then delegated the review process to
CFIUS. In 1992, the «Byrd» amendment required a thorough investigation of any
purchase in which the acquirer is owned or operated by a foreign government. In
the case of the Dubai Ports World, which is state-owned, CFIUS failed to conduct
an investigation until after Congress raised objections.
Experts disagree. A September 2005 report (PDF) from the Government
Accountability Office found that the review board tends to over-prioritize the U.S.
open investment policy and noted that some CFIUS members found the process
«not sufficiently flexible to protect critical infrastructure». But Malan says CFIUS
«starts from the standpoint that its priority is national security, but it inherently
recognizes the need for economic openness». Marchik agrees. «The (CFIUS)
process works very well now. It’s a very rigorous process», he says. In testimony
276
before the House Financial Services Committee on March 1, he described a series
of «network security agreements» that have been negotiated to mitigate the
security risk of foreign acquisitions. These include provisions that certain sensitive
positions may only be held by U.S. citizens, and measures subjecting U.S.-based
facilities to inspection by government agencies on as little as thirty-minutes’
notice.
U.S. lawmakers have criticized what they say is the secretive way the
government probes foreign takeovers of U.S. assets on the grounds of national
security. Some have called for public hearings on such proposed transactions
before a final decision is made. «The biggest problem», says Holtz-Eakin, «is the
absence of transparency in the process».
Yes. Ever since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, the
United States has relied on at least some level of foreign investment. Over the
years, there were several instances where this threatened national security. In 1915,
when a German diplomat accidentally left his briefcase on a train platform, U.S.
officials discovered that German investments in the United States were helping to
build up the German war-fighting capacity. When the United States entered the
First World War, President Wilson seized these assets. In 1927, Congress cited
security concerns when it banned foreign ownership of radio broadcasting
capabilities.
More recently, concerns raised by U.S. officials blocked the attempted 1987
acquisition of Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., a high-technology manufacturing
company, by Japan’s Fujitsu, Ltd. In 2005, congressional uproar prevented the
Chinese company CNOOC from purchasing the U.S. energy firm Unocal.
277
EXERCISES
1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.
2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.
businesses small government's produced significant minorities
owners evidence started big keep adjustment disparity
We hear all the time that «small 1)_________ create jobs», and it really is
true. Although just 21.5 percent of all small businesses are employers, almost half
of the nation's private sector workforce (49.2 percent) is employed by small
business–that's 120 million people! And since 1995, 2)_________ businesses have
been responsible for creating two out of every three–or 64 percent– of net new jobs
in our country. Accounting for 42.9 percent of U.S. payroll dollars, small
businesses drive a ton of consumer spending into the U.S. economy, as well as
income tax dollars into our 3)_________ budget.
Small businesses also lead the way in terms of tech and new product
innovation. In an evaluation of all «high patenting firms», or firms with 15 or more
patents in a four year period–a study conducted by the Small Business
Administration found that small businesses 4)_________ 16 times more patents
per employee compared to larger patenting firms. Considering that small
businesses account for 43 percent of high tech employment, it's not surprising to
note that tech startups account for a 5)_________ portion of that innovation.
More and more, small business ownership is reflecting the diversity of the
United States. As of 2012, 14.6 percent of small business owners were
6)_________, compared with 11.5 percent in 2007. This includes 2.3 million
Hispanic-American-owned businesses, 1.9 million African-American-owned
businesses, and 1.6 million Asian-owned businesses.
This diversity is also reflected in the 36 percent women business
7)_________, and the 9 percent of small businesses owned by veterans. Although
we're a long way from small business ownership being equally representative of
278
the American population, this is 8)_________ of the value and potential of the
small business economy for minority groups.
In a conversation about the value of small business for the U.S. economy,
we can't leave out this truth–all businesses start small. All of the 18,500 businesses
in the United States with 500 or more employees once began as a part of the small
business sector. Apple 9)_________ in Steve Jobs's garage. Facebook got its start
in Mark Zuckerberg's dorm room. Home-based, non-employing small businesses
become small employers, which in turn become 10)_________ businesses. So, in a
way, one could argue that the American small business economy is the American
economy. It's where the U.S. economy begins.
As a caveat, let's 11)_________ in mind that the majority of these numbers
come from the 2010 Census, or from the Office of Economic Research's 2012
study–which are considered the most accurate numbers reflecting the state of jobs
and business in the country. Being that we're coming up on 2015, it's likely that
these numbers have undergone some 12)_________ since then.
However, the Small Business Administration indicates that America's small
business economy is growing along with the rest of the recession recovery.
Although small businesses may be growing at a slower pace due to lending
challenges, that 13)_________ has not been enough to tip the scales. Facts are still
facts, and small businesses are still the backbone of the U.S. Economy.
3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.
ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ФОРМЫ БИЗНЕСА В США
На сегодня в США существуют следующие основные организационноправовые формы компаний:
• индивидуальные частные фирмы,
• партнерства,
• корпорации,
• компании с ограниченной
ответственностью (LLC).
279
Каждая форма собственности имеет свои, характерные для нее,
внутреннюю структуру и юридический статус, размеры и сферы
деятельности. Все формы собственности имеют свои преимущества и
недостатки, и выбор каждой из них предполагает как свою степень риска для
владельцев, так и свои выгоды.
Корпоративного законодательство США имеет двухуровневую
структуру. Соответствующие законы принимаются на
федеральном уровне и
на уровне штатов. Если штат не принял своего закона, то действует
федеральное законодательство.
Единоличные предприятия
Как и в большинстве других стран мира физическое лицо может вести
свой бизнес в форме единоличного предприятия (Sole proprietorship).
Ответственность предпринимателя является неограниченной. Судебный иск
может быть обращен на все его имущество. Эта форма
избирается для
мелких предприятий. Ее недостаток заключается в ограниченности
финансовых возможностей. Единоличные предприятия действуют в области
розничной и мелкооптовой торговле, оказывают услуги на местном уровне .
В качестве единоличных предпринимателей , часто ведут свою деятельность
биржевые маклеры. Исполнение каких-либо формальностей по регистрации
единоличного предприятия не требуется. Единственный официальный
документ – налоговая декларация. Финансовые
записи не обязательны.
Ведение их необходимо, прежде всего, в налоговых целях:
предпринимательские расходы квалифицируются законодательством иначе,
чем персональные. Для занятия некоторыми видами деятельности требуются
лицензии административных органов Штата.
Общее партнерство
Общее партнерство (General Partnership) или просто партнерство
функционирует на основе закона о партнерствах и договора между
партнерами, если таковой имеется. Законодательные нормы,
регулирующие
деятельность партнерств носят диспозитивный характер. Они применяются
280
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]