Latest news with #American-headquartered
Miami Herald
29-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
G-7 agrees to exclude U.S. companies from 15% minimum tax
June 29 (UPI) -- Group of Seven nations agreed to exempt U.S. companies from a 15% minimum corporate tax rate, the countries said in a joint statement. The nonbinding deal was announced Saturday but still requires approval from the 38-member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that established the 2021 agreement on taxing companies. G-7 nations are part of the OECED. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had proposed a "side-by-side solution" for American-headquartered companies that would be exempt from the Income Inclusion Rule and Undertaxed Profits Rule "in recognition of the existing U.S. minimum tax rules to which they are subject." The massive spending bill now being considered in Congress originally included a "revenge tax" that would have imposed a levy of up to 20% on investments from countries that taxed U.S. companies. "I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Bessent wrote in a multi-post thread on X on Thursday. The House has approved the massive legislation and the Senate is considering it. "It is an honorable compromise as it spares us from the automatic retaliations of Section 899 of the Big, Beautiful Bill," Italian Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti told local media. "We are not claiming victory, but we obtained some concessions as the U.S. pledged to engage in OECD negotiations on fair taxation," an unnamed French official told Politico Europe. The official called the "revenge tax" a potentially "huge burden for French companies." Trump has criticized this provision because he said it would limit sovereignty and send U.S. tax revenues to other countries. "The Trump administration remains vigilant against all discriminatory and extraterritorial foreign taxes applied against Americans," Bessent wrote Thursday. Trump has imposed a July 9 deadline for U.S. trading partners to lower taxes on foreign goods, threatening high duties on the worst offenders, including 50% on goods from the 27 European Union members. In April, a baseline tariff was imposed on most U.S. trading partners, with higher rates on certain companies and products. In 2021, nearly 140 countries agreed to tax multinational companies at the 15% minimum, regardless of where they were headquartered. In late April, the European Union, Britain, Japan and Canada agreed to exempt the United States from the 15% minimum tax on companies. "Delivery of a side-by-side system will facilitate further progress to stabilize the international tax system, including a constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy and on preserving the tax sovereignty of all countries," the joint statement read. The agreement, according to the statement, would ensure that any substantial risks identified "with respect to the level playing field, or risks of base erosion and profit shifting, are addressed to preserve the common policy objectives of the side-by-side system." The G-7 includes Britain, France, Germany, Italy in Europe, as well as Canada, Japan and U.S. Before 2014, the group was known as the G-8 until Russia was expelled after annexing the Crimea region of Ukraine. The chairs of the House and Senate committees responsible for tax policy cheered the agreement. "We applaud President Trump and his team for protecting the interests of American workers and businesses after years of congressional Republicans sounding the alarm on the Biden Administration's unilateral global tax surrender under Pillar 2," Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a press release. The agreement also, however, has its critics. "The U.S. is trying to exempt itself by arm-twisting others, which would make the tax deal entirely useless," Markus Meinzer, director of policy at the Tax Justice Network, told Politico Europe. "A ship with a U.S.-sized hole in its hull won't float." Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
SoraNews24
19-06-2025
- SoraNews24
Major Japanese hotel chain says reservations via overseas booking sites may not be valid
Travelers urged to confirm status of their reservations, including those made through one of the most popular overseas services. With summer vacation season coming up, there are a lot of people looking forward to taking a trip to Japan in the coming weeks. And while some of them are going to be splurging on luxury accommodations or a night in a traditional ryokan inn, a lot of them will be looking to allocate more of their budget for sightseeing, dining, and shopping, and so have booked rooms in no-frills hotels with reasonable rates and great locations. Unfortunately, it looks like some people who think they've booked those low-priced, conveniently located hotel rooms actually haven't. Toyoko Inn, one of Japan's largest budget hotel chains, with roughly 350 properties and 77,000 rooms across Japan, has put out an announcement warning travelers that the company may not have received their reservation if they made it through an overseas booking site. The problem isn't limited to shady, fly-by-night organizations, either, as Toyoko Inn's press release regarding the matter makes specific mention of Agoda, the Singapore-based subsidiary of the American-headquartered Booking Holdings, which is also the parent company of According to Toyoko Inn, problems have arisen where overseas booking sites are taking reservations for rooms that were originally allocated to official Toyoko Inn partners, but are now being resold by third-party agents. This has resulted in reservation information not being properly passed along to Toyoko Inn, or the provided reservation information not accurately reflecting the traveler's requested stay dates and room types. In other words, if you've made a Toyoko Inn reservation through an overseas booking site, there's a chance Toyoko Inn doesn't know about it, so when you roll up to the front desk, they might not be able to do anything other than regretfully inform you that you've got no place to stay. Toyoko Inn's press release also mentions that reservations made through overseas booking sites have encountered problems with 'overcharged rates' and 'offering non-refundable options.' Knowing this, your first instinct might be to contact the Toyoko Inn branch where you're planning to stay and confirm the details of your reservation. However, the company's statement instead instructs travelers to get in touch with the booking service they made their reservation with, saying in its statement: If you reserved through third party websites, we kindly ask you to contact those parties directly as Toyoko Inn is unable to confirm, modify, or cancel your reservation (including pre-paid credit card bookings) due to procedural constraints. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Again, though Agoda is the only booking service mentioned by name, Toyoko Inn says such issues have been cropping up with 'some overseas booking sites,' implying that reservations made through Agoda aren't the only ones at risk, so unless you booked with Toyoko Inn directly, double-checking with the service you used before you get on the plane is the smart move. Source: Toyoko Inn (1, 2) Top image: Pakutaso Insert image ©SoraNews24 ● Want to hear about SoraNews24's latest articles as soon as they're published? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!
The Herald Scotland
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
How an admin error became an existential crisis for Morton
It was announced on May 1st, one day before their final fixture with Dunfermline Athletic, that Morton had been slapped with a Fifa-imposed transfer embargo. This came after the Championship side failed to submit documentation to the governing body regarding the transfer of Jack Bearne which stated that Liverpool had waived their right to a compensation fee. It was reported that efforts to contact Morton were sent to the email of a former director instead of the club. Onlooking rival supporters, even some Morton fans, had a good laugh about it and everyone assumed that would be the end of it. Instead, it's created a chain reaction which has led to a crucial vote which could massively affect the future of the club. I'll try to be as succinct as possible in laying out the background in all of this. Morton are a fan-owned club but, similarly to Hearts and Motherwell, they are not fan run. There is the MCT (Morton Club Together) board and there is the Greenock Morton Football Club board (GMFC). MCT own 90 per cent of the club's shares. They have two representatives on the GMFC board. The problem is that neither of them told MCT about the embargo, which had been in place since mid-March. So the owners of the club only found out about it at the same time as the general public. This, understandably, caused a lot of consternation among MCT and the fanbase at large. It was felt the position of the two representatives had become untenable and they were asked to resign. When they didn't, MCT board members resigned in protest. Now let's introduce another player in this sorry mess: Dalrada. Founded by Brian Bonar, born in Greenock, the American-headquartered financial corporation has been the stadium and front-of-shirt sponsor since 2022 and has put around £1 million into the club over three years. However, it has been reported that payments were missed earlier this year, roughly around the time it was reported that Dalrada's stock price had plummeted. They've stepped between the warring board factions and offered a new sponsorship package of £540,000 per season, a not insignificant increase on the roughly £333,000 they've been spending already. So what's the problem? Well, two things. One, they want a seven-person GMFC board to be made up of two Dalrada representatives, two MCT members and three others who are agreed upon by all parties. The club's articles of association currently state that MCT representatives should always represent a majority on the board. And secondly, they insist the two current MCT representatives remain in place (though later stated through a Q&A that one of them would be a Dalrada representative) along with chairman John Laird, who isn't on the board but is another who has been called on to resign after the transfer embargo mess. A vote on the proposal will be tallied after the deadline next Tuesday. Fans who are MCT members have to decide whether to accept the proposal of a fresh sponsorship deal, with the existing one expiring later this summer, but at the cost of the fans giving up at least some control of the club. Not everyone is against the proposal. First of all, without Dalrada's sponsorship, at this late stage, Morton would be severely impacted financially ahead of next season and would likely have to go part-time or adopt an aggressive hybrid model to avoid financial disaster. They would therefore be expected to struggle mightily at a time when they're looking upwards at potential promotion under the guidance of the excellent Dougie Imrie. Secondly, many are happy to take Dalrada at their word when they say they're only interested in giving back to the local community by propping up the football club. And their only reason for trying to take greater control is that they want to see better governance after the farce witnessed at the end of the season. I doubt very highly that there are too many Morton supporters who will be swayed by what this writer thinks about the situation, but I have to say – this stinks to high heaven. If Dalrada are to be believed and they only want better governance of the club, then why are they insistent on the people essentially responsible staying on in their roles? It's all well and good wanting to know that your investment is in safe hands, but when it's folk who landed the club with a transfer embargo and didn't feel like telling the owners about it, there isn't much evidence to suggest they're the right people for the job. (In the Q&A the reason stated was that they didn't want to derail the promotion push. Aye, sure.) That argument is also undercut by Dalrada's actions themselves with all of this happening in late May/early June. That is no way to prepare for a new Scottish football season with the League Cup only six weeks away. Centre-backs Jack Baird and Morgan Boyes have already left, with the former saying a big reason he bolted for St Johnstone was because he didn't know what was going on with his now-former employers. Even if their proposal is voted through, they'll still be hamstrung next season because they've had a later start at squad building than everyone else. There's also no guarantee that Imrie, who opted to stick with the club yesterday after a flirtation with the Partick Thistle job but remains on the radar of other clubs, is going to stick around through all of this. This is no example of improved governance. Then there's the greatest fear: that Morton could be taken out of the hands of the supporters. The GMFC board cannot sell shares owned by MCT, but they could, in theory, put out a share issue. MCT would have first refusal but fans would have to dig very deep to come up with that kind of money. If they didn't, their stake would be diluted. There's even some suspicious wording in the Q&A where it says if Dalrada ever decided to withdraw from the club then 'it would be expected' that the boardroom set-up would revert back. What kind of guarantee is that? It's very possible that Dalrada are only trying to sort everything out and have went about it in a cack-handed manner. But this is what fan ownership is all about: to be certain that your club is not going to fall into the hands of people who don't have its best interests at heart. Voting yes will elevate some short-term pain, but long-term it's really not worth the risk.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Novartis commits $23bn to US manufacturing amid tariff threats
Novartis will invest $23bn in US-based manufacturing and research and development (R&D) over the next five years, becoming the latest pharmaceutical company to shift operations to the US in response to potential tariffs. The Swiss drugmaker said it plans to establish a biomedical research hub in San Diego—its second in the country. Novartis will also construct four new manufacturing facilities in yet-to-be-announced states – three focused on biologics and one on chemical drug substances. Following the firm's $1.75bn acquisition of radiopharmaceuticals company Mariana Oncology and the $745m deal with Ratio Therapeutics, Novartis is also expanding its radioligand therapy capabilities in the US with new sites in Florida and Texas. This investment is part of a broader trend among pharmaceutical companies exploring options to reshore operations to the US as President Donald Trump announced wide-ranging tariffs on imported products. Although finished drug products are exempt from the recently announced 10% blanket tariff, on 8 April, Trump said this 'major' tariff on pharmaceutical imports will be announced soon. The Novartis investment marks the first major US expansion by a European pharma company following the tariff warnings. American-headquartered firms like Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson (J&J), have already announced their own plans to increase US-based production. Eli Lilly disclosed a $27bn investment in February 2025, while J&J said in March 2025 that it would spend more than $55m on new facilities. MSD recently opened a $1bn manufacturing facility in North Carolina to increase production of its blockbuster HPV vaccine, Gardasil. The company described the investment as part of a broader $12bn commitment to US capital investment since 2018, with another $8bn expected by 2028. Novartis said it will be able to 'produce 100% of its key medicines end-to-end in the US' following the expansion. The company expects the investment to create around 1,000 direct jobs and an additional 4,000 jobs across its supply chain and surrounding communities. Earlier this week, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) called for urgent action to counter what it described as a 'risk of exodus' in R&D and manufacturing. In a meeting with European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen, the group said that unless the EU rapidly reforms its regulatory, intellectual property, and investment environment, drugmakers will increasingly shift operations to the US. In the 10 April announcement, Novartis' CEO Vas Narasimhan said: 'These investments also reflect the pro-innovation policy and regulatory environment in the US that supports our ability to find the next medical breakthroughs for patients.' "Novartis commits $23bn to US manufacturing amid tariff threats" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
