assignment代写：纳税人的案例分析和特朗普的观点
吉娜·林哈特(Gina Rinhart)是一位亿万富翁商人，她本季度需要缴纳4.66亿美元的税款，她所经手的321家大型私营企业缴纳的税款总额为20.5亿美元。另一方面，安德鲁•福雷斯特(Andrew Forrest)是另一位亿万富翁，他提供的数据不同，可以征税，但实际上是不正确的。他的会计原则不符合ASIC的战略。
此案突显出纳税人面临的两个独特问题——有限的纳税人和缺乏税收透明度数据。最终，缴纳的税款总额只有48%，这意味着52%的税款是由纳税人缴纳的。正如《澳大利亚金融评论》(Australian Financial Review)的一篇文章所指出的，这些事实还表明，超过98家公司不纳税，审计结果证明，它们的纳税额一直在上升，而完全没有遵循适当的税收原则。
唐纳德·特朗普的观点
唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)最近分享了他对企业倒置的看法。特朗普(Mintz, 2016)指出，税法被纳税人当作了一种优势。避税和逃税有两个不同的含义。避税是合法的，当公司倾向于避免立即支付，并试图晚些时候支付时，就会发生避税。另一方面，偷税漏税是指公司明知是偷税漏税而为谋取全部利益的违法行为。当这一概念被应用到吉娜和安德鲁的上述案件时，他们的逃税行为是高度违法的。他们不仅避免，而且还产生了与组织有关的操纵会计报告(gkin et al, 2004)。
正如唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)在讲话中正确指出的那样，企业一直试图保持海外利润。这是公司逃避企业所得税的一种常见方法。这就是全球经济崩溃的原因。他坚称，美国政府应实施强有力的长期全球经济政策，让企业定期、及时地缴纳应缴税款，而不是逃税。企业的贪婪似乎是吉娜和安德鲁斯结婚的原因。
由于安德鲁斯是一位亿万富翁，很明显，如果他没有更好地了解会计原理，他是不会活下来的。这意味着企业税收被完全遗忘，甚至被从企业政策中剔除(Mintz, 2016)。以吉娜为例，这纯粹是贪婪的企业财富的一个例子，因为她拥有大量的公司，还拥有一大笔应缴税款。然而，由于她所在地区的企业税收政策并不强硬，她没有缴纳税款，而是选择了非法途径。
assignment代写：纳税人的案例分析和特朗普的观点
Gina Rinhart is a billionaire business person who is liable to pay $466 million as tax for the quarter and she is also liable to pay $2.05 billion as the total tax for the dues that have arrived from 321 large private companies handled by her. On the other hand, Andrew Forrest is yet another billionaire who has showed a different data that can be taxed but is indeed incorrect. His accounting principles are not in line with the ASIC strategies.
The case highlights two unique problems faced – limited taxpayers and lack of tax transparency data. Eventually, the total tax paid account to only 48% which implies that 52% of the amounts are unpaid by the taxpayers. The facts, as identified by Australian Financial Review article, also imply that over 98 companies pay no taxes and the audits prove that their amounts have been rising with absolutely no proper taxation principles followed.
Views of Donald Trump
Donald Trump has recently shared his views on corporate inversions. The tax law has been taken as an advantage by taxpayers, cites Trump (Mintz, 2016). Tax avoidance and tax evasion have two different meanings. Tax avoidance is legal and happens when companies tend to avoid paying immediately and try paying later. On the other hand, tax evasion implies the illegal act where the company knowingly cheats on taxes so as to take total advantage. When this concept is applied to Gina’s and Andrew’s cases given above, they have performed tax evasion which is highly illegal. They have not just avoided but have also produced manipulated accounting reports pertaining to the organization (Gaffikin et al, 2004).
As Donald Trump rightly says in his talk, companies have attempted to maintain their profits overseas. This is followed as a common technique by companies to escape from corporate income taxes. This stands to be the reason behind the global economic breakdown. He insists US government to impose strong and long term global economic policy for the corporations to regularly and timely pay their tax shares instead of tax evasions. The corporate greed appears to be the reason for both Gina and Andrews.
As Andrews is a billionaire, it is clear that he would not have survived if he had not known the accounting principles better. This implies that the corporate taxation is totally forgotten or even taken out from the corporate policies (Mintz, 2016). In case of Gina, it is a pure example of corporate wealth greediness as she maintains a big host of companies and also owns a huge amount as the tax due. Yet, she has not paid and has chosen to take the illegal path as the corporate tax policies are not stronger in her region.
