IELTS Reading: Thuế Doanh Nghiệp Tối Thiểu Toàn Cầu – Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Giới thiệu

Chủ đề về thuế doanh nghiệp toàn cầu và trốn thuế quốc tế đã và đang là một trong những đề tài nóng hổi xuất hiện ngày càng thường xuyên trong các kỳ thi IELTS Reading gần đây. Với sự phát triển của toàn cầu hóa và các tập đoàn đa quốc gia, vấn đề thiết lập mức thuế tối thiểu toàn cầu để ngăn chặn lậu thuế trở thành tâm điểm của các cuộc thảo luận chính sách kinh tế quốc tế.

Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ được trải nghiệm một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh gồm 3 passages với độ khó tăng dần, từ Easy đến Hard. Đề thi được thiết kế dựa trên cấu trúc và tiêu chuẩn của Cambridge IELTS, bao gồm:

• 3 passages đầy đủ với tổng cộng hơn 2000 từ, từ dễ đến khó
• 40 câu hỏi đa dạng với 7 dạng bài khác nhau giống thi thật
• Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích vị trí và cách paraphrase
• Từ vựng quan trọng theo từng passage với phiên âm và ví dụ
• Chiến lược làm bài hiệu quả từ kinh nghiệm thực tế

Bộ đề này phù hợp cho học viên có trình độ từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn làm quen với chủ đề kinh tế-xã hội phức tạp thường xuất hiện trong IELTS Academic Reading.

1. Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút cho 3 passages với tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được tính 1 điểm, không trừ điểm cho câu sai. Điều quan trọng là bạn cần phân bổ thời gian hợp lý cho từng passage:

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

• Passage 1: 15-17 phút (độ khó Easy)
• Passage 2: 18-20 phút (độ khó Medium)
• Passage 3: 23-25 phút (độ khó Hard)

Lưu ý dành 2-3 phút cuối để chuyển đáp án vào Answer Sheet. Không có thời gian thêm cho việc này!

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 7 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:

1. Multiple Choice Questions – Câu hỏi trắc nghiệm nhiều lựa chọn
2. True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng/sai/không được đề cập
3. Matching Information – Nối thông tin với đoạn văn
4. Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu
5. Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề với đoạn văn
6. Summary Completion – Hoàn thành đoạn tóm tắt
7. Short-answer Questions – Câu hỏi trả lời ngắn

Mỗi dạng câu hỏi đòi hỏi kỹ năng và chiến lược riêng, vì vậy hãy luyện tập kỹ lưỡng từng dạng.

---

2. IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – The Tax Haven Problem: An Introduction

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

In recent decades, the issue of corporate tax avoidance has become increasingly prominent in global economic discussions. Many multinational corporations have been accused of using legal loopholes to minimize their tax obligations, often by shifting profits to countries with lower tax rates. This practice, known as base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), has raised concerns among governments worldwide about the fairness of the international tax system.

Tax havens are countries or territories that offer extremely low or zero tax rates to foreign businesses and individuals. Popular tax havens include Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and the British Virgin Islands. These jurisdictions attract companies not only through low taxes but also by providing financial secrecy and minimal reporting requirements. Large technology companies, pharmaceutical firms, and financial institutions have been particularly adept at utilizing these tax havens to reduce their effective tax rates to single digits, despite earning billions in revenue from countries with much higher tax rates.

The scale of tax avoidance is staggering. According to research by the Tax Justice Network, countries lose an estimated $427 billion annually in tax revenue due to corporate tax abuse and private tax evasion. This represents approximately 10% of global corporate income tax receipts. Developing countries are disproportionately affected, losing a higher percentage of their potential tax revenue compared to developed nations. This revenue loss means less funding for essential public services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

The traditional international tax system was designed in the 1920s when businesses were largely confined to single countries. However, the rise of digital commerce and globalization has rendered many of these rules outdated. Companies can now operate across borders with ease, making it difficult for tax authorities to determine where profits are actually generated. A customer in France might purchase a product from a company registered in Ireland, with intellectual property held in the Netherlands, and manufacturing done in China – creating a complex web that obscures where value is truly created.

Public opinion has shifted dramatically on this issue. High-profile cases such as the Paradise Papers and Panama Papers leaks exposed how the wealthy and powerful use offshore structures to avoid taxes. These revelations sparked public outrage and increased pressure on politicians to take action. Citizens in many countries feel that when large corporations pay minimal taxes while ordinary workers cannot avoid their tax obligations, it creates an unfair two-tier system that undermines social cohesion.

Several countries have attempted unilateral measures to address tax avoidance. The United Kingdom introduced a “diverted profits tax” in 2015, often called the “Google tax,” which targets companies that artificially divert profits from the UK. France implemented a digital services tax on large technology companies in 2019. However, these individual country approaches have limitations. They can lead to double taxation, create trade tensions, and are difficult to enforce when companies can simply restructure their operations to avoid them.

International cooperation has therefore become essential. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has led efforts to create a coordinated global approach. In 2021, over 130 countries agreed in principle to a two-pillar solution. The first pillar addresses where taxes should be paid, ensuring that large multinationals pay taxes in the countries where they do business, not just where they are headquartered. The second pillar establishes a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%, designed to reduce the incentive for companies to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions.

Supporters of a global minimum tax argue it would create a “level playing field” for businesses worldwide. Small and medium-sized enterprises often cannot access the same sophisticated tax planning strategies as large multinationals, giving bigger companies an unfair advantage. A minimum tax rate would reduce this competitive distortion. Additionally, it would allow governments to fund public services adequately without engaging in a harmful “race to the bottom” where they continuously lower tax rates to attract investment.

However, the proposal faces significant challenges. Some countries, particularly those that have built their economies around offering low tax rates, view the minimum tax as an infringement on their national sovereignty. Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate of 12.5% and has attracted numerous multinational headquarters, initially resisted but eventually agreed to the framework. Small developing nations argue that their ability to compete for foreign investment through lower taxes is being removed without offering alternative development pathways.

Implementation also presents technical difficulties. Countries must agree on common definitions, accounting standards, and enforcement mechanisms. The system requires sophisticated tax administration capabilities that many developing countries currently lack. There are also questions about whether a 15% rate is high enough to truly discourage tax avoidance, or whether it simply legitimizes low tax rates that would previously have been considered unacceptable.

Despite these challenges, momentum for reform appears strong. The economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic increased government debt levels worldwide, making tax revenue more critical than ever. Public awareness of tax justice issues remains high, and politicians face pressure to demonstrate they are addressing inequality. Whether the global minimum tax becomes a watershed moment in international taxation or falls short of its ambitious goals will likely depend on the details of implementation and the continued political will of participating nations.

---

Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.

1. According to the passage, base erosion and profit shifting refers to:
A. Companies paying higher taxes in developing countries
B. Corporations using legal methods to reduce tax payments
C. Governments lowering their tax rates
D. The movement of workers between countries

2. The passage states that the Tax Justice Network estimates countries lose annually:
A. $247 billion
B. $327 billion
C. $427 billion
D. $527 billion

3. The traditional international tax system was created:
A. In the 1920s
B. In the 1950s
C. In the 1980s
D. In the 2000s

4. The “Google tax” introduced by the United Kingdom is also known as:
A. Digital services tax
B. Diverted profits tax
C. Minimum corporate tax
D. BEPS tax

5. The global minimum corporate tax rate agreed upon by OECD countries is:
A. 10%
B. 12.5%
C. 15%
D. 20%

Questions 6-10: True/False/Not Given

Do the following statements agree with the information given in the passage?

Write:

• TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
• FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
• NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

6. Developing countries lose a smaller percentage of potential tax revenue than developed nations due to tax avoidance.

7. The Paradise Papers and Panama Papers revelations led to increased public demand for action on tax avoidance.

8. France was the first country to introduce a digital services tax.

9. Ireland initially opposed the global minimum tax framework but later accepted it.

10. Most developing countries have the administrative capacity to implement the global minimum tax system.

Questions 11-13: Sentence Completion

Complete the sentences below.

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

11. Tax havens attract companies by offering low taxes and maintaining __.

12. The OECD’s two-pillar solution ensures that large multinationals pay taxes in countries where they __, not just where they are headquartered.

13. Some countries fear that a global minimum tax represents an infringement on their __.

---

PASSAGE 2 – Economic Arguments For and Against Global Tax Harmonization

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

A. The debate surrounding the implementation of a global minimum corporate tax rate encompasses fundamental questions about economic efficiency, sovereignty, and distributive justice. Proponents argue that such a measure would address what they characterize as destructive tax competition – a phenomenon whereby jurisdictions continuously reduce corporate tax rates to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), ultimately eroding the tax base across all nations. This “race to the bottom,” they contend, has resulted in corporate tax rates falling dramatically over the past four decades, from an average of approximately 40% in 1980 to around 23% today, while simultaneously shifting the tax burden disproportionately onto less mobile factors such as labor and consumption.

B. From a public economics perspective, supporters of a minimum tax rate invoke the concept of fiscal externalities. When one country lowers its tax rate to attract investment, it imposes negative externalities on other nations by reducing their potential tax revenue and forcing them to either accept lower revenues or cut their own rates in response. This creates a prisoner’s dilemma situation where all countries would benefit from coordination, yet individual incentives encourage non-cooperative behavior. A binding minimum rate, in this framework, represents a Pareto improvement – making at least some countries better off without making any worse off, or at minimum, improving overall global welfare even if some jurisdictions experience losses.

C. The economic efficiency argument extends beyond revenue considerations. Allocation of capital should ideally be determined by genuine economic factors such as productivity, infrastructure quality, workforce skills, and market access, rather than by artificial tax differentials. When investment decisions are primarily tax-driven, resources become misallocated from an efficiency standpoint. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s research suggests that profit shifting leads to significant distortions in global investment patterns, with capital flowing to locations that offer minimal real economic value beyond tax advantages. A minimum tax rate could reduce these distortions, allowing for more economically rational patterns of international investment.

Minh họa công ty đa quốc gia và áp dụng thuế tối thiểu toàn cầu

D. Moreover, advocates emphasize the compliance cost savings that harmonization could generate. Currently, multinational corporations employ thousands of tax specialists and spend billions annually on complex tax planning structures. Tax authorities likewise expend considerable resources investigating and challenging these arrangements through transfer pricing disputes and other mechanisms. A more uniform system with a minimum rate would reduce the returns to aggressive tax planning, thereby decreasing both corporate spending on tax optimization and government expenditure on enforcement. These resources could be redirected toward more productive activities.

E. However, critics of a global minimum tax present compelling counter-arguments rooted in different economic theories and empirical observations. The tax competition model, popular among free-market economists, suggests that competition between jurisdictions for mobile capital acts as a beneficial constraint on government expansion. In this view, the ability of capital to relocate in response to excessive taxation creates a disciplining effect on governments, preventing wasteful public spending and forcing more efficient delivery of public services. High-tax jurisdictions, according to this perspective, often suffer from bureaucratic inefficiency and excessive regulation; tax competition serves as a corrective mechanism that rewards good governance.

F. From a developmental economics standpoint, the minimum tax proposal raises concerns about its impact on smaller and developing nations. These countries often lack the advanced infrastructure, established industrial bases, and skilled workforces that attract investment to developed economies. Their ability to offer competitive tax rates has been one of few available tools for economic development and industrial diversification. Ireland’s transformation from one of Europe’s poorest countries to one of its wealthiest is frequently cited as evidence that strategic use of tax policy can successfully bootstrap economic development. Similarly, Mauritius, Singapore, and Estonia leveraged favorable tax regimes as components of broader development strategies.

G. Critics also question the empirical assumptions underlying the minimum tax proposal. While profit shifting undoubtedly occurs, some research suggests the problem’s magnitude has been overstated. Studies using different methodologies produce widely varying estimates of revenue losses, ranging from less than $100 billion to over $600 billion annually. The more conservative estimates suggest that the costs of implementing and administering a complex global minimum tax system might exceed the additional revenue it generates, particularly for countries with less developed tax administration capacities. Furthermore, the incidence of corporate taxation – who ultimately bears the burden – remains contested among economists. If, as some research suggests, workers bear a substantial portion through lower wages, then concerns about corporate tax avoidance may be somewhat misplaced.

H. There are also questions about unintended consequences and implementation feasibility. Corporations might respond to a minimum tax not by repatriating profits to high-tax jurisdictions but by finding alternative avoidance strategies that comply with the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The complexity of modern business structures, with intangible assets, intellectual property, and digital business models, creates numerous opportunities for manipulation. Skeptics point to previous international tax initiatives that failed to achieve their intended goals due to definitional ambiguities and inconsistent application across jurisdictions. Without genuinely unified global enforcement – which would require unprecedented international cooperation and sacrifice of sovereignty – sophisticated taxpayers will likely find ways to minimize their obligations.

I. The political economy dimension adds further complexity. The minimum tax framework currently focuses on companies with revenues exceeding 750 million euros, exempting the vast majority of businesses. This creates a two-tier system where different rules apply to large versus small enterprises. While this may be administratively necessary, it raises fairness questions and potentially creates competitive distortions favoring mid-sized companies just below the threshold. Additionally, the negotiated minimum rate of 15% represents a political compromise rather than an economically optimized rate. Some analysts argue this rate is too low to significantly impact corporate behavior, functioning more as a floor that legitimizes what would previously have been considered unacceptably low tax rates rather than as a meaningful reform.

J. Ultimately, the debate reflects deeper disagreements about the appropriate role of government, the desirability of economic integration versus autonomy, and how to balance efficiency, equity, and sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected global economy. Both sides present theoretically coherent arguments and can cite supporting evidence for their positions. The practical outcome will likely depend less on which economic theory proves correct and more on the political feasibility of implementation and the ability of international institutions to create effective enforcement mechanisms that respect the diversity of national economic circumstances while addressing legitimate concerns about tax base erosion.

---

Questions 14-19: Matching Headings

The passage has ten paragraphs, A-J.

Choose the correct heading for paragraphs A-F from the list of headings below.

Write the correct number, i-xii.

List of Headings:

i. The problem of defining who pays corporate taxes
ii. Historical decline in corporate tax rates
iii. Benefits of tax competition for government efficiency
iv. Questions about the accuracy of revenue loss calculations
v. Improved capital allocation through tax harmonization
vi. How developing nations use tax policy for growth
vii. Administrative savings from simplified tax systems
viii. The negative impact of non-cooperation between countries
ix. Risks of creating unfair advantages based on company size
x. Previous failed attempts at international tax coordination
xi. Alternative strategies corporations might employ
xii. The role of infrastructure in attracting investment

14. Paragraph A
15. Paragraph B
16. Paragraph C
17. Paragraph D
18. Paragraph E
19. Paragraph F

Questions 20-23: Summary Completion

Complete the summary below.

Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Supporters of a global minimum corporate tax believe it would eliminate 20. __ externalities caused when countries lower tax rates to attract investment. They argue that investment decisions should be based on real economic factors rather than 21. __ differentials. Additionally, both corporations and governments currently spend significant resources on tax planning and **22. __ disputes.

However, critics argue that tax competition creates a useful **23. __ effect on governments, preventing wasteful spending and encouraging efficient public service delivery.

Questions 24-26: Yes/No/Not Given

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in the passage?

Write:

• YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer
• NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
• NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

24. The writer believes that a 15% minimum tax rate is sufficient to prevent most tax avoidance.

25. According to the writer, there is disagreement among economists about who ultimately pays corporate taxes.

26. The writer suggests that developing countries will benefit more than developed countries from the global minimum tax.

---

PASSAGE 3 – Implementation Challenges and the Future of International Tax Architecture

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), comprising over 140 jurisdictions, represents an unprecedented attempt to fundamentally reconfigure the architecture of international taxation for the digital age. The October 2021 agreement on a two-pillar solution – particularly Pillar Two’s establishment of a 15% global minimum tax rate – constitutes what many scholars characterize as the most significant transformation in international tax norms since the League of Nations’ initial efforts at tax coordination in the 1920s. However, translating this political consensus into effective operational reality presents formidable technical, administrative, and political obstacles that may ultimately determine whether the initiative represents genuine reform or merely symbolic gesture.

The technical complexity of Pillar Two’s Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules cannot be overstated. The Model Rules released by the OECD in December 2021 span over 60 pages of dense legal and technical provisions, supplemented by hundreds of pages of commentary and implementation guidance. The rules introduce novel concepts such as the “jurisdictional blending” approach, “substance-based income exclusion,” and “qualified domestic minimum top-up tax,” each requiring intricate calculations involving adjusted covered taxes, GloBE income, and effective tax rates at both entity and jurisdictional levels. The Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and Undertaxed Payments Rule (UTPR) create a complex hierarchical structure where the right to collect additional tax depends on whether other jurisdictions in a corporate structure have applied their own qualifying rules.

This extraordinary complexity raises serious questions about administrative feasibility, particularly for developing countries with limited tax administration capacity. The GloBE rules presuppose access to consolidated financial statements prepared under accepted accounting standards, sophisticated data systems capable of tracking income and taxes across multiple jurisdictions, and sufficient technical expertise to interpret and apply intricate provisions. A 2022 survey by the International Monetary Fund found that fewer than 30% of low-income countries possessed the necessary information technology infrastructure and trained personnel to implement the minimum tax framework without substantial external assistance. The risk of asymmetric implementation – where developed countries with advanced tax administrations effectively apply the rules while developing countries struggle – could paradoxically advantage corporations headquartered in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement capabilities.

Triển khai hệ thống thuế toàn cầu giữa các quốc gia trên thế giới

The transitional rules and safe harbors incorporated into the framework, while intended to ease implementation, introduce additional complexity and potential avoidance opportunities. The “substance-based carve-out” excludes from the minimum tax calculation a percentage of income equal to 5% of tangible asset value plus 5% of payroll costs (declining to 5% for both after a transition period). This provision, negotiated to address concerns from countries with genuine business substance, creates incentives for corporations to restructure operations to maximize the carve-out’s benefits. Sophisticated tax planning might shift not just paper profits but actual economic activity to low-tax jurisdictions in ways that technically comply with the rules while defeating their purpose. The irony that a measure designed to combat substance-less profit shifting might incentivize strategic reallocation of real economic activity has not escaped critics.

Furthermore, the interaction between the global minimum tax and existing bilateral tax treaties presents significant interpretational challenges. The OECD has developed a Multilateral Instrument (MLI) to facilitate coordinated treaty modifications, yet comprehensive revision of thousands of bilateral agreements remains a Herculean task. Inconsistencies between treaty provisions and the new minimum tax rules could create double taxation, legal uncertainty, and fertile ground for disputes. The dispute resolution mechanisms outlined in the framework rely heavily on mutual agreement procedures (MAP) and arbitration processes that have proven slow and inadequate even for current, less complex disputes. Without substantial strengthening of international dispute resolution capacity – itself requiring significant political will and resource allocation – the risk of prolonged uncertainty and litigation could undermine the system’s effectiveness.

The political sustainability of the agreement faces ongoing challenges from multiple directions. In the United States, implementation requires Congressional approval of legislation that fundamentally alters the international provisions of the tax code. Given the narrow political margins and deep partisan divisions in Congress, passage remains uncertain. The agreement’s viability could be jeopardized if the world’s largest economy fails to implement it, potentially triggering a cascade of reconsiderations by other nations. The European Union faces its own implementation challenges, requiring unanimous approval among member states for tax matters. Hungary initially blocked the EU’s implementing directive, demanding removal of Hungary from an unrelated tax blacklist – illustrating how the minimum tax initiative could become entangled in broader geopolitical disputes.

Moreover, countries that built economic development strategies around favorable tax regimes confront difficult transitions. Ireland, which attracted enormous foreign investment through its 12.5% corporate rate, faces the prospect of revenue volatility and potential investment flight as its tax advantage diminishes. While the substance-based carve-out provides some protection for genuine economic activity, the psychological impact of removing Ireland’s signature competitive advantage could affect investment perceptions. Similarly, Caribbean nations, Mauritius, and other small jurisdictions fear economic disruption without compensating development assistance. The agreement’s architects incorporated vague commitments to “capacity building” and technical assistance, but whether these translate into meaningful support remains to be seen.

The behavioral responses of multinational corporations to the minimum tax represent another major uncertainty. Economic modeling of the policy’s impact relies on assumptions about corporate elasticity and the degree to which tax considerations drive location decisions. However, the unprecedented nature of a coordinated global minimum makes predictive modeling highly speculative. Corporations might respond through reduced overall investment, accelerated automation to maximize the payroll-based carve-out, increased lobbying for national exemptions and special regimes, or development of novel avoidance structures exploiting gaps in the rules. The general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) incorporated into the framework provide some flexibility to combat unforeseen strategies, yet their application requires judgment calls by tax authorities that could themselves become sources of dispute and uncertainty.

From a public choice theory perspective, one might question whether the incentives of key actors align with effective implementation. The OECD, as the framework’s architect, has institutional interests in demonstrating the initiative’s success, potentially leading to optimistic assessments that understate implementation difficulties. Large accounting and legal firms benefit from complexity that creates demand for their advisory services, potentially generating subtle resistance to simplification efforts. Tax authorities in high-tax jurisdictions may prioritize revenue collection over the framework’s broader goals, applying rules in ways that maximize domestic revenue rather than global coherence. These misaligned incentives could gradually erode the system’s integrity through accumulated small deviations from its intended operation.

The philosophical tensions underlying the agreement also merit examination. The framework attempts to reconcile fundamentally contradictory principles: national tax sovereignty versus international coordination, source-based taxation versus residence-based taxation, formulary approaches versus arm’s-length pricing, and economic allegiance versus legal domicile. Rather than resolving these tensions, the two-pillar solution creates an intricate structure that incorporates elements of each while satisfying none completely. This conceptual incoherence may prove sustainable in the short term through political momentum and vague commitments, but could fragment under pressure as countries pursue divergent interests during implementation.

Nevertheless, despite these substantial challenges, the agreement’s significance should not be dismissed. It represents a normative shift in international tax discourse, establishing new expectations about acceptable corporate tax behavior and governmental obligations. Even imperfect implementation could reduce the most egregious forms of profit shifting and establish precedents for future international economic cooperation. The initiative’s success may ultimately depend less on the technical elegance of its design and more on continued political will among major economies to prioritize tax cooperation over narrow competitive advantages. Whether 2021 marks a genuine inflection point in international taxation or merely another ambitious agreement that withers during implementation remains contingent on developments over the coming decade as countries navigate the treacherous path from political commitment to operational reality.

---

Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.

27. According to the passage, the GloBE Model Rules released in December 2021:
A. Are simple enough for all countries to implement
B. Contain approximately 60 pages of complex provisions
C. Focus primarily on developing country concerns
D. Replace all existing bilateral tax treaties

28. The “substance-based carve-out” mentioned in the passage:
A. Is set at a permanent rate of 10% for both tangible assets and payroll
B. Excludes income equal to 5% of tangible assets plus 5% of payroll initially
C. Only applies to developing countries
D. Eliminates all incentives for profit shifting

29. The passage suggests that implementation in the United States:
A. Has already been completed successfully
B. Requires Congressional approval which is uncertain
C. Does not affect the global agreement’s viability
D. Is easier than in European Union countries

30. The passage indicates that Ireland’s concern about the minimum tax is:
A. Primarily about losing its 12.5% corporate tax advantage
B. Only related to administrative capacity
C. Easily resolved through the carve-out provision
D. Shared by no other developed countries

31. From a public choice theory perspective, the passage suggests:
A. All actors have perfectly aligned incentives for successful implementation
B. The OECD has no institutional interest in the framework’s success
C. Misaligned incentives might gradually undermine the system’s integrity
D. Large accounting firms prefer tax simplification

Questions 32-36: Matching Features

Match each challenge (Questions 32-36) with the correct category (A-F) from the list below.

Write the correct letter, A-F.

Categories:
A. Technical/Administrative challenges
B. Political challenges
C. Economic/Behavioral challenges
D. Legal/Treaty challenges
E. Philosophical/Conceptual challenges
F. Institutional/Incentive challenges

32. The complexity of GloBE rules requiring sophisticated data systems and expertise

33. The requirement for unanimous EU approval and narrow margins in US Congress

34. Uncertainty about how corporations will respond to the new minimum tax

35. Inconsistencies between existing bilateral tax treaties and new minimum tax provisions

36. The attempt to reconcile contradictory principles like sovereignty versus coordination

Questions 37-40: Short-answer Questions

Answer the questions below.

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each answer.

37. What percentage of low-income countries have the necessary IT infrastructure to implement the minimum tax framework according to the 2022 IMF survey?

38. What two bases are used to calculate the substance-based carve-out percentage (initially)?

39. What mechanism does the OECD propose to facilitate coordinated modifications to bilateral tax treaties?

40. According to the passage, when was the agreement on the two-pillar solution reached?

---

3. Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. B
2. C
3. A
4. B
5. C
6. FALSE
7. TRUE
8. NOT GIVEN
9. TRUE
10. FALSE
11. financial secrecy
12. do business
13. national sovereignty

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. ii
15. viii
16. v
17. vii
18. iii
19. vi
20. fiscal/negative
21. tax
22. transfer pricing
23. disciplining
24. NOT GIVEN
25. YES
26. NO

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. B
29. B
30. A
31. C
32. A
33. B
34. C
35. D
36. E
37. fewer than 30% / less than 30%
38. tangible assets, payroll / assets, payroll
39. Multilateral Instrument / MLI
40. October 2021

---

4. Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: base erosion and profit shifting, refers to
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, câu 2-3
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ “This practice, known as base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)” đề cập đến việc các công ty đa quốc gia “using legal loopholes to minimize their tax obligations, often by shifting profits to countries with lower tax rates.” Đây chính là paraphrase của đáp án B “Corporations using legal methods to reduce tax payments.” Các đáp án khác không được đề cập hoặc sai nghĩa.

Câu 2: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Tax Justice Network, estimates, lose annually
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, câu 2
• Giải thích: Thông tin xuất hiện rõ ràng: “According to research by the Tax Justice Network, countries lose an estimated $427 billion annually in tax revenue due to corporate tax abuse and private tax evasion.”

Câu 3: A

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: traditional international tax system, created
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, câu 1
• Giải thích: “The traditional international tax system was designed in the 1920s when businesses were largely confined to single countries.”

Câu 6: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Developing countries, smaller percentage
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, câu 4
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói “Developing countries are disproportionately affected, losing a higher percentage of their potential tax revenue compared to developed nations.” Điều này trực tiếp mâu thuẫn với statement, nên đáp án là FALSE.

Câu 7: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Paradise Papers, Panama Papers, public demand
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, câu 2-3
• Giải thích: “High-profile cases such as the Paradise Papers and Panama Papers leaks exposed how the wealthy and powerful use offshore structures to avoid taxes. These revelations sparked public outrage and increased pressure on politicians to take action.” Câu này khẳng định statement là đúng.

Câu 9: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Ireland, opposed, accepted
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, câu 3
• Giải thích: “Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate of 12.5% and has attracted numerous multinational headquarters, initially resisted but eventually agreed to the framework.”

Câu 10: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: developing countries, administrative capacity
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10, câu 3
• Giải thích: “The system requires sophisticated tax administration capabilities that many developing countries currently lack.” Điều này mâu thuẫn với statement rằng “most developing countries have the capacity.”

Câu 11: financial secrecy

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Tax havens, attract, low taxes
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, câu 2
• Giải thích: “These jurisdictions attract companies not only through low taxes but also by providing financial secrecy and minimal reporting requirements.”

Câu 12: do business

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: OECD, two-pillar, large multinationals, pay taxes
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, câu 3
• Giải thích: “The first pillar addresses where taxes should be paid, ensuring that large multinationals pay taxes in the countries where they do business, not just where they are headquartered.”

Câu 13: national sovereignty

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: countries fear, minimum tax, infringement
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, câu 2
• Giải thích: “Some countries, particularly those that have built their economies around offering low tax rates, view the minimum tax as an infringement on their national sovereignty.”

---

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: ii (Historical decline in corporate tax rates)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Paragraph A
• Giải thích: Đoạn A thảo luận về “race to the bottom” và đề cập cụ thể “corporate tax rates falling dramatically over the past four decades, from an average of approximately 40% in 1980 to around 23% today.” Đây là heading phù hợp nhất về sự sụt giảm lịch sử của thuế suất doanh nghiệp.

Câu 15: viii (The negative impact of non-cooperation between countries)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Paragraph B
• Giải thích: Đoạn B tập trung vào “fiscal externalities” và “prisoner’s dilemma situation” – minh họa tác động tiêu cực khi các quốc gia không hợp tác với nhau trong chính sách thuế.

Câu 16: v (Improved capital allocation through tax harmonization)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Paragraph C
• Giải thích: Đoạn C lập luận rằng “Allocation of capital should ideally be determined by genuine economic factors” và minimum tax “could reduce these distortions, allowing for more economically rational patterns of international investment.”

Câu 17: vii (Administrative savings from simplified tax systems)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Paragraph D
• Giải thích: Đoạn D tập trung vào “compliance cost savings” và việc giảm chi phí cho “complex tax planning structures” và “enforcement.”

Câu 18: iii (Benefits of tax competition for government efficiency)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Paragraph E
• Giải thích: Đoạn E trình bày quan điểm của những người phản đối, cho rằng cạnh tranh thuế “acts as a beneficial constraint on government expansion” và tạo ra “disciplining effect on governments, preventing wasteful public spending.”

Câu 19: vi (How developing nations use tax policy for growth)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Paragraph F
• Giải thích: Đoạn F thảo luận về cách các nước đang phát triển sử dụng “competitive tax rates” và đưa ra ví dụ về Ireland, Mauritius, Singapore, và Estonia sử dụng “strategic use of tax policy” để phát triển kinh tế.

Câu 20: fiscal / negative

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: externalities
• Vị trí trong bài: Paragraph B
• Giải thích: “When one country lowers its tax rate to attract investment, it imposes negative externalities on other nations” hoặc “supporters of a minimum tax rate invoke the concept of fiscal externalities.”

Câu 21: tax

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: investment decisions, economic factors, differentials
• Vị trí trong bài: Paragraph C
• Giải thích: “Allocation of capital should ideally be determined by genuine economic factors… rather than by artificial tax differentials.”

Câu 22: transfer pricing

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: governments, spending, disputes
• Vị trí trong bài: Paragraph D
• Giải thích: “Tax authorities likewise expend considerable resources investigating and challenging these arrangements through transfer pricing disputes and other mechanisms.”

Câu 23: disciplining

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: critics, effect on governments
• Vị trí trong bài: Paragraph E
• Giải thích: “The ability of capital to relocate in response to excessive taxation creates a disciplining effect on governments, preventing wasteful public spending.”

Câu 24: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Giải thích: Mặc dù đoạn I đề cập “Some analysts argue this rate is too low to significantly impact corporate behavior,” nhưng đây là quan điểm của “some analysts” chứ không phải của chính tác giả. Tác giả không nêu rõ quan điểm cá nhân về tính đầy đủ của mức 15%.

Câu 25: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Vị trí trong bài: Paragraph G
• Giải thích: “Furthermore, the incidence of corporate taxation – who ultimately bears the burden – remains contested among economists.” Đây là khẳng định rõ ràng của tác giả về sự bất đồng này.

Câu 26: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Vị trí trong bài: Paragraph F
• Giải thích: Paragraph F và toàn bài thể hiện rằng developing countries có nhiều lo ngại hơn là lợi ích, khi họ “often lack the advanced infrastructure” và “ability to offer competitive tax rates has been one of few available tools.” Điều này mâu thuẫn với statement.

---

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: GloBE Model Rules, December 2021
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, câu 2
• Giải thích: “The Model Rules released by the OECD in December 2021 span over 60 pages of dense legal and technical provisions, supplemented by hundreds of pages of commentary and implementation guidance.”

Câu 28: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: substance-based carve-out
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, câu 2
• Giải thích: “The ‘substance-based carve-out’ excludes from the minimum tax calculation a percentage of income equal to 5% of tangible asset value plus 5% of payroll costs (declining to 5% for both after a transition period).”

Câu 29: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: United States, implementation
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, câu 2
• Giải thích: “In the United States, implementation requires Congressional approval of legislation that fundamentally alters the international provisions of the tax code. Given the narrow political margins and deep partisan divisions in Congress, passage remains uncertain.”

Câu 30: A

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Ireland, concern
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, câu 2
• Giải thích: “Ireland, which attracted enormous foreign investment through its 12.5% corporate rate, faces the prospect of revenue volatility and potential investment flight as its tax advantage diminishes.”

Câu 31: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: public choice theory
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9
• Giải thích: Đoạn 9 kết thúc bằng: “These misaligned incentives could gradually erode the system’s integrity through accumulated small deviations from its intended operation.”

Câu 32: A (Technical/Administrative challenges)

• Vị trí: Đoạn 2-3
• Giải thích: Complexity của GloBE rules đòi hỏi “sophisticated data systems” và “sufficient technical expertise” – đây rõ ràng là thách thức kỹ thuật/hành chính.

Câu 33: B (Political challenges)

• Vị trí: Đoạn 6
• Giải thích: Yêu cầu “Congressional approval” và “unanimous approval” trong EU là các thách thức chính trị.

Câu 34: C (Economic/Behavioral challenges)

• Vị trí: Đoạn 8
• Giải thích: “The behavioral responses of multinational corporations to the minimum tax represent another major uncertainty” – đây là thách thức kinh tế/hành vi.

Câu 35: D (Legal/Treaty challenges)

• Vị trí: Đoạn 5
• Giải thích: “The interaction between the global minimum tax and existing bilateral tax treaties presents significant interpretational challenges” – thách thức pháp lý/hiệp ước.

Câu 36: E (Philosophical/Conceptual challenges)

• Vị trí: Đoạn 10
• Giải thích: “The framework attempts to reconcile fundamentally contradictory principles” – đây là thách thức triết học/khái niệm.

Câu 37: fewer than 30% / less than 30%

• Vị trí: Đoạn 3, câu 4
• Giải thích: “A 2022 survey by the International Monetary Fund found that fewer than 30% of low-income countries possessed the necessary information technology infrastructure and trained personnel.”

Câu 38: tangible assets, payroll / assets, payroll

• Vị trí: Đoạn 4, câu 2
• Giải thích: “The ‘substance-based carve-out’ excludes from the minimum tax calculation a percentage of income equal to 5% of tangible asset value plus 5% of payroll costs.”

Câu 39: Multilateral Instrument / MLI

• Vị trí: Đoạn 5, câu 2
• Giải thích: “The OECD has developed a Multilateral Instrument (MLI) to facilitate coordinated treaty modifications.”

Câu 40: October 2021

• Vị trí: Đoạn 1, câu 2
• Giải thích: “The October 2021 agreement on a two-pillar solution…”

---

5. Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
tax avoidance	n. phrase	/tæks əˈvɔɪdəns/	tránh thuế (hợp pháp)	corporate tax avoidance has become increasingly prominent	tax avoidance scheme, aggressive tax avoidance
multinational corporation	n. phrase	/ˌmʌltiˈnæʃənl ˌkɔːpəˈreɪʃn/	công ty đa quốc gia	Many multinational corporations have been accused	multinational corporation operates, large multinational corporation
loophole	n.	/ˈluːphəʊl/	kẽ hở, lỗ hổng pháp lý	using legal loopholes to minimize their tax obligations	tax loophole, legal loophole, close the loophole
profit shifting	n. phrase	/ˈprɒfɪt ˈʃɪftɪŋ/	chuyển dịch lợi nhuận	shifting profits to countries with lower tax rates	base erosion and profit shifting, profit shifting strategies
tax haven	n. phrase	/tæks ˈheɪvn/	thiên đường thuế	Tax havens are countries or territories that offer extremely low tax rates	offshore tax haven, popular tax haven
effective tax rate	n. phrase	/ɪˈfektɪv tæks reɪt/	thuế suất hiệu dụng	reduce their effective tax rates to single digits	low effective tax rate, calculate effective tax rate
revenue loss	n. phrase	/ˈrevənjuː lɒs/	mất nguồn thu	This revenue loss means less funding for essential public services	significant revenue loss, annual revenue loss
registered	adj.	/ˈredʒɪstəd/	được đăng ký	a company registered in Ireland	registered company, registered office
public outrage	n. phrase	/ˈpʌblɪk ˈaʊtreɪdʒ/	phẫn nộ công chúng	These revelations sparked public outrage	cause public outrage, public outrage over
unilateral measures	n. phrase	/ˌjuːnɪˈlætərəl ˈmeʒəz/	biện pháp đơn phương	Several countries have attempted unilateral measures	take unilateral measures, unilateral measures against
level playing field	n. phrase	/ˌlevl ˈpleɪɪŋ fiːld/	sân chơi công bằng	create a level playing field for businesses worldwide	ensure a level playing field, maintain level playing field
race to the bottom	n. phrase	/reɪs tə ðə ˈbɒtəm/	cuộc đua xuống đáy	without engaging in a harmful race to the bottom	prevent race to the bottom, race to the bottom in taxation

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
tax harmonization	n. phrase	/tæks ˌhɑːmənaɪˈzeɪʃn/	hài hòa hóa thuế	global tax harmonization	tax harmonization policy, achieve tax harmonization
distributive justice	n. phrase	/dɪˈstrɪbjʊtɪv ˈdʒʌstɪs/	công lý phân phối	questions about distributive justice	principles of distributive justice, distributive justice theory
fiscal externalities	n. phrase	/ˈfɪskl ˌekstɜːˈnælətiːz/	các yếu tố bên ngoài về tài chính	supporters invoke the concept of fiscal externalities	negative fiscal externalities, fiscal externalities on other nations
prisoner’s dilemma	n. phrase	/ˈprɪznəz dɪˈlemə/	nghịch lý tù nhân	This creates a prisoner’s dilemma situation	classic prisoner’s dilemma, prisoner’s dilemma in economics
Pareto improvement	n. phrase	/pəˈreɪtəʊ ɪmˈpruːvmənt/	cải thiện Pareto	represents a Pareto improvement	achieve Pareto improvement, potential Pareto improvement
misallocated	adj.	/ˌmɪsˈæləkeɪtɪd/	phân bổ sai	resources become misallocated from an efficiency standpoint	misallocated capital, misallocated resources
compliance cost	n. phrase	/kəmˈplaɪəns kɒst/	chi phí tuân thủ	the compliance cost savings that harmonization could generate	reduce compliance cost, high compliance cost
transfer pricing	n. phrase	/trænsˈfɜː ˈpraɪsɪŋ/	định giá chuyển giao	through transfer pricing disputes	transfer pricing rules, transfer pricing manipulation
disciplining effect	n. phrase	/ˈdɪsəplɪnɪŋ ɪˈfekt/	hiệu ứng kỷ luật	creates a disciplining effect on governments	disciplining effect on spending, market disciplining effect
bureaucratic inefficiency	n. phrase	/ˌbjʊərəˈkrætɪk ˌɪnɪˈfɪʃnsi/	kém hiệu quả của bộ máy quan료	often suffer from bureaucratic inefficiency	reduce bureaucratic inefficiency, bureaucratic inefficiency problems
industrial diversification	n. phrase	/ɪnˈdʌstriəl daɪˌvɜːsɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/	đa dạng hóa công nghiệp	industrial diversification	promote industrial diversification, economic and industrial diversification
empirical assumptions	n. phrase	/ɪmˈpɪrɪkl əˈsʌmpʃnz/	các giả định thực nghiệm	question the empirical assumptions underlying the proposal	test empirical assumptions, empirical assumptions about
incidence of taxation	n. phrase	/ˈɪnsɪdəns əv tækˈseɪʃn/	gánh nặng thuế (ai chịu thuế)	the incidence of corporate taxation remains contested	analyze incidence of taxation, tax incidence on workers
definitional ambiguities	n. phrase	/ˌdefɪˈnɪʃənl æmbɪˈɡjuːətiːz/	sự mơ hồ về định nghĩa	due to definitional ambiguities and inconsistent application	resolve definitional ambiguities, legal definitional ambiguities
political compromise	n. phrase	/pəˈlɪtɪkl ˈkɒmprəmaɪz/	thỏa hiệp chính trị	represents a political compromise rather than an economically optimized rate	reach political compromise, political compromise between

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
architecture	n.	/ˈɑːkɪtektʃə(r)/	kiến trúc, cấu trúc	the architecture of international taxation	tax architecture, institutional architecture, reform architecture
operational reality	n. phrase	/ˌɒpəˈreɪʃənl riˈæləti/	thực tế vận hành	translating political consensus into effective operational reality	operational reality of implementation, operational reality differs
jurisdictional blending	n. phrase	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃənl ˈblendɪŋ/	hòa trộn giữa các khu vực pháp lý	jurisdictional blending approach	jurisdictional blending rules, jurisdictional blending calculation
administrative feasibility	n. phrase	/ədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪtɪv ˌfiːzəˈbɪləti/	tính khả thi về mặt hành chính	raises serious questions about administrative feasibility	assess administrative feasibility, administrative feasibility challenges
consolidated financial statements	n. phrase	/kənˈsɒlɪdeɪtɪd faɪˈnænʃl ˈsteɪtmənts/	báo cáo tài chính hợp nhất	presuppose access to consolidated financial statements	prepare consolidated financial statements, consolidated financial statements under IFRS
asymmetric implementation	n. phrase	/ˌeɪsɪˈmetrɪk ˌɪmplɪmenˈteɪʃn/	thực hiện bất đối xứng	The risk of asymmetric implementation	asymmetric implementation across countries, problems of asymmetric implementation
safe harbor	n. phrase	/seɪf ˈhɑːbə(r)/	điều khoản miễn trừ an toàn	safe harbors incorporated into the framework	safe harbor provision, safe harbor rules, qualify for safe harbor
substance-based carve-out	n. phrase	/ˈsʌbstəns beɪst ˈkɑːv aʊt/	khấu trừ dựa trên thực chất	The substance-based carve-out excludes income	substance-based carve-out percentage, calculate substance-based carve-out
bilateral tax treaties	n. phrase	/baɪˈlætərəl tæks ˈtriːtiːz/	hiệp ước thuế song phương	interaction between the global minimum tax and bilateral tax treaties	renegotiate bilateral tax treaties, network of bilateral tax treaties
Multilateral Instrument	n. phrase	/ˌmʌltiˈlætərəl ˈɪnstrəmənt/	Công cụ đa phương	The OECD has developed a Multilateral Instrument (MLI)	sign the Multilateral Instrument, Multilateral Instrument provisions
interpretational challenges	n. phrase	/ɪnˌtɜːprɪˈteɪʃənl ˈtʃælɪndʒɪz/	thách thức về giải thích	presents significant interpretational challenges	face interpretational challenges, overcome interpretational challenges
mutual agreement procedures	n. phrase	/ˈmjuːtʃuəl əˈɡriːmənt prəˈsiːdʒəz/	thủ tục thỏa thuận lẫn nhau	rely heavily on mutual agreement procedures (MAP)	initiate mutual agreement procedures, mutual agreement procedures case
Congressional approval	n. phrase	/kənˈɡreʃənl əˈpruːvl/	sự phê duyệt của Quốc hội	implementation requires Congressional approval	require Congressional approval, seek Congressional approval
revenue volatility	n. phrase	/ˈrevənjuː ˌvɒləˈtɪləti/	biến động nguồn thu	faces the prospect of revenue volatility	reduce revenue volatility, revenue volatility concerns
behavioral responses	n. phrase	/bɪˈheɪvjərəl rɪˈspɒnsɪz/	phản ứng hành vi	The behavioral responses of multinational corporations	predict behavioral responses, analyze behavioral responses
general anti-avoidance rules	n. phrase	/ˈdʒenrəl ˈænti əˈvɔɪdəns ruːlz/	quy tắc chống lẩn tránh chung	The general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR)	apply general anti-avoidance rules, general anti-avoidance rules provision
public choice theory	n. phrase	/ˈpʌblɪk tʃɔɪs ˈθɪəri/	lý thuyết lựa chọn công cộng	From a public choice theory perspective	public choice theory analysis, public choice theory suggests
normative shift	n. phrase	/ˈnɔːmətɪv ʃɪft/	sự thay đổi về chuẩn mực	represents a normative shift in international tax discourse	significant normative shift, normative shift in thinking
inflection point	n. phrase	/ɪnˈflekʃn pɔɪnt/	điểm uốn, điểm chuyển biến	marks a genuine inflection point in international taxation	reach an inflection point, inflection point in policy

---

Kết luận

Chủ đề về thuế doanh nghiệp tối thiểu toàn cầu để ngăn chặn trốn tránh thuế không chỉ là một vấn đề nóng hổi trong kinh tế quốc tế mà còn là đề tài xuất hiện ngày càng thường xuyên trong IELTS Reading. Qua bộ đề thi mẫu này, bạn đã được trải nghiệm cách IELTS tiếp cận chủ đề phức tạp này qua ba mức độ khác nhau:

Passage 1 giới thiệu các khái niệm cơ bản như tax havens, profit shifting, và BEPS với độ khó vừa phải, phù hợp để xây dựng nền tảng hiểu biết. Passage 2 đi sâu vào các lập luận kinh tế ủng hộ và phản đối thuế tối thiểu toàn cầu, yêu cầu kỹ năng phân tích cao hơn. Passage 3 thách thức người học ở mức độ học thuật với các vấn đề thực thi phức tạp và những mâu thuẫn triết học trong chính sách quốc tế.

Với 40 câu hỏi đa dạng bao gồm 7 dạng bài khác nhau, bạn đã thực hành đầy đủ các kỹ năng cần thiết cho bài thi thực tế: scanning để tìm thông tin cụ thể, skimming để nắm ý chính, paraphrasing để nhận diện thông tin được diễn đạt khác, và inference để suy luận ý nghĩa ngầm.

Học viên luyện tập IELTS Reading hiệu quả với chiến lược làm bài

Phần đáp án chi tiết với giải thích về vị trí thông tin, cách paraphrase, và lý do đáp án đúng/sai sẽ giúp bạn không chỉ biết được kết quả mà còn hiểu được quy trình tư duy để đến với đáp án đúng. Đây chính là chìa khóa để cải thiện band điểm Reading của bạn.

Bộ từ vựng được tổng hợp từ cả ba passages với hơn 40 từ và cụm từ quan trọng, kèm phiên âm, nghĩa tiếng Việt, và collocations sẽ giúp bạn làm giàu vốn từ vựng học thuật – yếu tố then chốt không chỉ cho Reading mà còn cho cả Writing Task 2 khi gặp chủ đề kinh tế-xã hội tương tự.

Hãy nhớ rằng việc làm một bộ đề không phải là kết thúc mà là khởi đầu. Hãy phân tích kỹ những câu sai, hiểu rõ tại sao bạn chọn sai, và rút ra bài học cho lần sau. Luyện tập đều đặn với các chủ đề đa dạng sẽ giúp bạn xây dựng kỹ năng vững chắc và tự tin bước vào phòng thi IELTS thực tế. Chúc bạn đạt được band điểm mục tiêu!