Please answer questions 1,2,3 and 4. Thanks! manageient ase When Corporations Pu
ID: 433637 • Letter: P
Question
Please answer questions 1,2,3 and 4. Thanks!
manageient ase When Corporations Pull Promises Made to Government The interrelationships of corporations with government entities have become a critical part of community development and economic redevelopment. However, sometimes there are benefits but reneged promises. The following scenarios illustrate the t problems that result from these interrelationships ypes of Susette Kelo, Little Pink Houses, and Pfizer the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469(2005), constitutional and legislative shock wave rumbled across the country. States changed their statutes and constitutions on when and how local government could take private property for redevelopment purposes, and property owners began resisting local redeve lopment plans The Kelo case began in 1978 when the city of New London, Connecticut, undertook a redevelopment plan for the area in and around the existing park at Fort Trumbull. The plan had the goals of the ambience a state park should have, including the absence of existing pink cottages and other architecturally eclectic homes that had long been part of the area, one of which was owned by Susette Kelo. The central focus of the plan was tting the Pfizer pharmaceutical company to bring its new research facility to the Fort T'rumbull area with a hoped-for economic boost from a major corporate employer Under the plan Kelo's and others' homes would be razed to make room for Pfizer and its facilities. The homeowners filed suit, challenging New London's legal authority to take their homes. The trial court issued an injunction preventing New London from taking certain of the properties, but allowing others to be taken. The appellate court found for New London on all the claims; the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed (in a 4-3 de sion); and the landowners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the Con- necticut Supreme Court decision by a 5-4 vote.Explanation / Answer
1. Tax incentive basically is a type of government intervention to encourage trade in the country by reducing the tax that a company may have to pay, while ding trade in the country. Tax incentives help in attracting new investments and business ventures in the country.
Tax incentives can be accomplished when the government gives grants or tax reductions to companies that agree to do business in its country.
2. If a company pulls out after receiving government benefits or tax breaks, the government has full rights to sue the company. When government offers a tax benefit to a company, a proper agreement is made mentioning the terms for departure or closure of the common objective. If the company fails to fulfill the objectives, it can be sued on the pre-agreed terms between the government and the respective company.
3. When a government offers tax benefits to a company for doing business in its land, it is trying to build a relationship with the company. If the company pulls out of the project, the relationship between the 2 entities also gets hampered. Also the social awakening and responsibility of the company can be questioned if it tries for an early closure.
4. When a corporation reneges in a mutual development promise, following are the consequences that the various stakeholders may face: