We can work on Effective Communication: Partnership in Italy

Melissa Chang was asked to travel to Venice, Italy and meet with her company’s partnering company. Preparation for the trip was stressful. Not only had her colleague cancelled their recent trip to Moscow at the last minute, making the US partner look bad, but the Italian partner had made several requests for information which none of Melissa’s colleagues had fulfilled. She learned all of this information upon making phone contact with their office to confirm her travel plans.

After that initial phone call, Melissa was not looking forward to the trip. She felt that her company had not upheld basic business standards, and adding a language barrier to the equation did not make things any smoother. She was very hesitant to make the trip and felt very guarded. She knew her Italian counterparts were frustrated and she could relate to their feelings. However, she also had a job to do – get more work out of them. If things did not get cleared up quickly, they could potentially lose the partnership. Melissa dreaded having to be the one to deliver that piece of news.

Once in Venice and face-to-face with the partners, Melissa quickly realized their source of frustration. From their perspective, the US partner had not upheld their end of the business deal by providing some basic product information. Melissa had that information with her and easily provided the files. She was able to answer all their questions and explain the business process in the US during the first meeting.

The second day of business meetings was even more productive. Melissa noted a change in her Italian counterparts’ disposition when she entered the office that second morning. They were much warmer and willing to sit down and discuss details. By lunch time, Melissa had information showing how much the Italian office had produced and where they were actually outperforming the US parent office. It was clear that their partnership was nowhere near being in jeopardy.

As the week drew to a close, both Melissa and the Italian partners drew up a projected plan for the next fiscal year. Italy was on track to set new sales records. Their requests for information were basic in her opinion, and Melissa was able to provide them accurate details before her departure. While a few of the finer points she did not understand fully due to the language barrier, Melissa felt reassured seeing firsthand how committed they were to the product. She could not find anything that would cause concern for their business transactions going forward. She chuckled to herself thinking how much she had dreaded this trip initially.

The Italians thought Melissa was a top businesswoman. Their appreciation was immeasurable. The president of the Italian office arranged a formal dinner in her honor. All employees attended with their families. Before dessert was served, he toasted Melissa’s professionalism during the entire week. The president noted her empathetic listening skills and ability to relate to their business needs as being critical to their future success. He also praised her for the quick actions and decisiveness she demonstrated during their meetings.

Answer the following questions:

Discuss how Melissa’s communication style impacted the performance of the Italian partners.
What do you think were the primary sources of information prior to Melissa’s visit?
What do you think the primary sources of information will be after Melissa’s visit?
What might account for Melissa’s change in attitude about dealing with the Italian partners after her visit?

Sample Solution

then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: “must not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.” , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but “solely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community law”. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such. The Court did not make the pivotal distinction between two anti-abuse doctrines. The first of these entails prohibiting tax advantages when tax considerations were the only way to determine the taxpayer’s legal behaviour and there was no other credible explanation based on objectively ascertainable facts. The second involves a doctrine in which tax considerations may be the principal (or one of the principal reasons) for explaining the taxpayer’s behaviour. In failing to make this distinction, the Court is seen to interpret the rule of “principal” or “one of the principal” tax reasons as formulated in Article 11 of the Directive as the expression of the “one and only” doctrine of Cadbury Schweppes. The Court then essentially gave the power of decision making back to the national court. By doing this, it left open the possibility for the national courts to control how the anti-abuse doctrine applied. This in turn gave the Directive provision a “reverse vertical direct effect”; it allowed the Member State to rely on it against an individual without transposition. 5.4 Acceptance as an overriding principle of EU law Halifax and Koefed provide the framework provide a clear acceptance of the principle of abuse of EU law as a general principle. Thus, 5.5 The influence of Halifax in direct taxation: Cadbury Schw>

facebook Share on Facebook

Twitter Tweet

Follow Follow us
custom Share
custom Share
custom Share
custom Share
custom Share

then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: “must not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.” , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but “solely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community law”. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such. The Court did not make the pivotal distinction between two anti-abuse doctrines. The first of these entails prohibiting tax advantages when tax considerations were the only way to determine the taxpayer’s legal behaviour and there was no other credible explanation based on objectively ascertainable facts. The second involves a doctrine in which tax considerations may be the principal (or one of the principal reasons) for explaining the taxpayer’s behaviour. In failing to make this distinction, the Court is seen to interpret the rule of “principal” or “one of the principal” tax reasons as formulated in Article 11 of the Directive as the expression of the “one and only” doctrine of Cadbury Schweppes. The Court then essentially gave the power of decision making back to the national court. By doing this, it left open the possibility for the national courts to control how the anti-abuse doctrine applied. This in turn gave the Directive provision a “reverse vertical direct effect”; it allowed the Member State to rely on it against an individual without transposition. 5.4 Acceptance as an overriding principle of EU law Halifax and Koefed provide the framework provide a clear acceptance of the principle of abuse of EU law as a general principle. Thus, 5.5 The influence of Halifax in direct taxation: Cadbury Schw>

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples

Custom Written Work

Guaranteed on Time

Achieve the Grade You ordered