Unit 1 MARKET ISSUES

Task 1 Give Vietnamese equivalents to the following words and

phrases based on the text in Task 2.

1. put the squeeze on sb/sth (v) ……………………………………………………

2. Miami vice (n) ……………………………………………………
3. cough up sth (v) ……………………………………………………
4. an undisclosed offshore bank account (n) ……………………………………………………
5. federal prosecutors (n) ……………………………………………………
6. harry (v) ……………………………………………………
7. moneyman (n) ……………………………………………………
8. suspect (v) ……………………………………………………
9. tax evasion ……………………………………………………
10. be about to (v) ……………………………………………………
11. dodge (v) ……………………………………………………
12. fiscal obligation (n) ……………………………………………………
13. stuff (v) ……………………………………………………
14. savings (n) ……………………………………………………
15. reciprocity (n) ……………………………………………………
16. hound (v) ……………………………………………………
17. American tax cheats (v) ……………………………………………………
18. the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ……………………………………………………
19. draw up sth (v) ……………………………………………………
20. non-resident alien (n) ……………………………………………………
21. tax authorities (n) ……………………………………………………
22. account-holder (n) ……………………………………………………
23. give rise to sth (v) ……………………………………………………
24. huff and puff (v), huffing and puffing (n) ……………………………………………………
25. financial district (v) ……………………………………………………
26. sue (v) ……………………………………………………
27. overly (adv) ……………………………………………………
28. burdensome (adj) ……………………………………………………
29. capital flight (n) ……………………………………………………
30. massive (adj) ……………………………………………………
31. legitimate (adj) ……………………………………………………
32. disclose (v) ……………………………………………………
33. misuse (v) ……………………………………………………
34. rogue (adj) ……………………………………………………
35. the District of Columbia (NP) ……………………………………………………
36. throw out (v) ……………………………………………………
37. challenge (n) ……………………………………………………
38. clear the way for sth (v) ……………………………………………………
39. take effect (v) ……………………………………………………
40. motion (n) ……………………………………………………
41. summary judgment (n) ……………………………………………………
42. the Administrative Procedure Act (n) ……………………………………………………
43. the Regulatory Flexibility Act (n) ……………………………………………………
44. contend (v) ……………………………………………………
45. agency (n) ……………………………………………………
46. spark (v) ……………………………………………………
47. destabilize (v) ……………………………………………………
48. a reciprocal bank information-exchange agreement ……………………………………………………
49. pact (n) ……hiệp ước…………………………………
50. panicky (adj) ……hoảng sợ………………………………………
51. a 23-page ruling (n) ……phán quyết dài 23 trang………………………………
52. swat aside sth (v) gạt sang 1 bên
53. contention (n) …tranh chấp
54. fiction (n) …hư cấu…
55. interest-bearing deposit (NP) ……tiền gửi có lãi
56. dip (v) ………nhúng, chìm
57. bounce back (v) ……trả lại
58. signatory (n) ………người ký tên…
 59. estimate (v) ……ước tính…
60. accommodating (adj) …chứa đựng…
61. local property ……tài sản địa phương…
62. defeat (n) …đánh bại……
63. throw one’s weight behind sth (v) …ném trọng lượng của 1 người ra sau…
64. senator (n) ……thượng nghị sĩ…
65. bill (n) …hóa đơn thanh toán……
66. opponent (n) ………đối thủ
67. go along with (v) …………………đi cùng với
68. the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (n) …đạo luật tuân thủ thuế tài khoản nước
ngoài
69. come into force (VP) …có hiệu lực……
70. supercharge (v) …………phụ phí…
71. accord (n) phù hợp…
72. tax-shy (adj) trốn thuế…………
73. the stick or carrot approach (n) …phương pháp tiếp cận cây gạy hoặc củ cà
rốt…………………………………………………

Task 2 Translate the following text into Vietnamese.

Banks and Tax Evasion: Putting the Squeeze on Miami Vice

American banks will have to cough up data on non-Americans who hold accounts with them.

It has become a lot less comfortable to be an American with an undisclosed offshore bank account in

recent years, thanks to the federal prosecutors who have harried foreign moneymen and lawyers

suspected of aiding tax evasion, particularly in Switzerland. Now life is also about to get harder for non-

Americans who dodge their fiscal obligations at home by stuffing savings in American banks.

Forced to offer some degree of reciprocity as it hounds other countries for information on

American tax cheats, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) drew up a rule in 2012 that would, for the first
time, force American banks to cough up data on “non-resident aliens” who hold accounts with them.

This would then be passed on to tax authorities in the account-holders’ home countries. This gave rise to

much huffing and puffing from banks which hold a lot of Latin American money, for instance in Miami's

financial district (pictured). The banking associations of Florida and Texas jointly sued the feds, claiming

the regulation was overly burdensome and could lead to massive capital flight because legitimate

customers might fear their information would be disclosed to, and misused by, rogue governments. This

week, a federal court in the District of Columbia threw out the challenge, clearing the way for the new

rule to take effect in March. (Nhóm 1)

Miami's financial district

The banking associations had argued in their motion for summary judgment that the rule

violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. They contended that

the IRS had got its economics wrong and that the new requirement would cause more harm to banks

than the agency had foreseen. In making their case that it might spark enough capital flight to

destabilise local banks and economies, they pointed to the case of Canada, the only country that already
has a reciprocal bank information-exchange agreement with the United States. When that pact took

effect in 2000, they argued, large sums were pulled from American banks by panicky Canadians.

In a 23-page ruling, Judge James Boasberg swatted aside these arguments, writing that the IRS

had “reasonably concluded that the regulations will improve US tax compliance, deter foreign and

domestic tax evasion, impose a minimal reporting burden on banks, and not cause any rational actor—

other than a tax evader—to withdraw his funds from US accounts.” The judge accepted the IRS’s

contention that the alleged Canadian capital flight was “a fiction”: though the amount of Canadian

interest-bearing deposits dipped after the reporting requirements were issued, they bounced back

shortly afterwards. The court also noted that the IRS will only pass information on to the 70 countries

with which it has information-exchange agreements. These require signatories to store information

responsibly and treat it as secret. (Nhóm 2)

It’s unclear how much money could be affected. The IRS has estimated that foreign individuals

have up to $400 billion in American accounts. Miami’s financial centre has the most to fear, though it

has become less accommodating towards dirty money over the past decade, and a good deal of what

remains is thought to have been moved out of banks and into local property. The court ruling also marks

a defeat for the numerous senior Florida and Texas politicians who threw their weight behind the banks,

among them Marco Rubio, a United States senator with presidential ambitions, who introduced a bill to

kill the regulation.

Had opponents been successful, the government would have found it harder to get other

countries to go along with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), a law passed in 2010 that

requires financial institutions in other countries to report to the IRS funds held by American customers.

FATCA, which is due to come into force in July after several delays, has supercharged the expansion of a

network of bilateral tax-information accords, leaving the tax-shy with far fewer places to hide. America
has done much of the stick-wielding to make this happen. The court’s ruling this week ensures it will also

be able to offer some carrots. (Nhóm 3)