Vietnam investment regulations – Definition of “Foreign investors”
There are more than one definition of foreign investors (nhà đầu tư nước ngoài) under Vietnamese law:
- Foreign investors are defined under the Investment Law to mean … “foreign organization or individual using capital in order to carry out an investment activity in Vietnam”. The definition under the Investment Law seems to suggest that only companies incorporated outside Vietnam can be regarded as foreign investors.
- However, in subsequent decisions of the Prime Minister (Decision 88/2009 and Decision 55/2009), foreign investors also include enterprises established in Vietnam with more than 49% of capital contributed by “foreign parties” (bên nước ngoài). It is not clear if the term “foreign parties” are the same as “foreign investors” in the Prime Minister’s decision.
- The Ministry of Finance on the other hand consider foreign investors to include “enterprises established in Vietnam with 100% foreign contributed capital”.
- The latest document (Decree 102/2001) does not provide a definition of foreign investors but provides that companies incorporated in Vietnam of which foreign investors own more than 49% will be subject to the same investment and business conditions as those applicable to foreign investors.
In summary, there are overlapping and confusing definitions of “foreign investors” under Vietnamese law. However, it is reasonable to conclude that such term will cover, among others, companies incorporated outside of Vietnam and companies incorporated in Vietnam of which foreign investors own more than 49%.
We are still waiting for the official Decree guiding the Corporate Income Tax Law 2025 (CIT Law 2025). However, the New Draft Decree of the Government dated 5 September 2025 (New Draft Decree) and the Official Letter 4685 of the Tax Department dated 29 October 2025 (Official Letter 4685) provide critical updates.
For foreign investors, the rules for selling capital in Vietnam are shifting. The new rules broaden the tax scope while offering potential - though ambiguous - exemptions. Below is our analysis of the key changes.
1. Clarifying the Scope: Direct vs. Indirect Transfers
In our previous post, we highlighted the uncertainty regarding whether “indirect transfers” (selling the offshore parent) and “direct transfers” (selling the Vietnam entity) would be taxed differently. The previous Draft Decree was ambiguous, applying the 2% revenue tax rate only to transactions where the owner “does not directly manage the business.” This implied that direct transfers might face a different tax rate.
The New Draft Decree resolves this uncertainty with two key changes:
· Unified Tax Treatment: Article 3.3 of the New Draft Decree explicitly states that taxable income for foreign companies includes income from capital transfers, whether direct or indirect. This confirms a unified approach: whether a foreign investor transfers capital in a domestic entity or in an offshore holding company, the tax treatment is identical.
· New exemptions replacing the “management” test: Article 11.2(i) of the New Draft Decree clarifies that the 2% tax on revenue applies to all capital transfers, with three specific exceptions: (i) restructuring (tái cơ cấu), (ii) internal financial arrangements of the seller (dàn xếp tài chính nội bộ của bên chuyển nhượng), or (iii) consolidation of the seller’s parent company (hợp nhất của công ty mẹ của bên chuyển nhượng).
While this appears helpful for internal group restructuring, investors should note that terms like “restructuring” and “internal financial arrangements” are not clearly defined in Vietnamese law. Without specific definitions, the determination of these exemptions will remain subject to the tax officers’ discretion.
In recent years, digital assets have been at the forefront of regulatory discussions worldwide. Vietnam is also making an effort to create a legal framework for its 100-billion-dollar market with the issuance of the 2025 Law on Digital Technology Industry – which is the first to introduce the legal definition of “digital assets”, and the Resolution 05/2025/NQ-CP greenlighting pilot program for the cryptographic digital assets market (Resolution 05/2025).
With the effective date of the Law on Digital Technology Industry fast approaching, we have a few comments on the current legal concept of digital assets in Vietnam, which we find to be rudimentary and raises more questions than answers.
For a long time, Vietnam’s housing law has restricted housing developers (generally, “master developer”) from distributing houses or residential land use rights within a project as in-kind profit to capital-contributing partners (generally, “secondary investors”). This restriction aims to prevent the master developers from using capital contribution arrangements to sell off-plan houses to customers before those properties are legally qualified for sale. In particular, Article 116.1(e) of the Housing Law 2023 currently provides that:
Under the Enterprise Law 2020, a minority ordinary shareholder voting against certain important decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders may request the relevant joint stock company to redeem the shares held by such dissenting shareholder. However, the law is not clear about the scope of this redemption. In particular,
It is not clear whether the redemption right covers both ordinary shares and preference shares held by the dissenting shareholder. The law provides that in the request for redemption, the shareholder will specify the number of shares of each class. This suggests that the redemption right covers preference shares in addition to ordinary shares.
A conflict arises if the redemption right is found to cover preference shares, but the terms of those shares (as defined in the charter) do not permit redemption. In this situation, it is not clear whether the company can lawfully refuse the request. Since a shareholder needs to comply with the charter which contains the terms of the preference shares, the dissenting shareholder cannot require the company to redeem the relevant preference shares. On the other hand, since the provisions on the content of a redemption request do not clearly exclude shares which cannot be redeemed, the dissenting shareholder can argue that it has the right to specify all the shares (including non-redeemable preference shares) in the redemption request.
In June 2025, the National Assembly passed a new Law on Personal Data Protection (PDPL 2025), set to take effect on 1 January 2026. This new law represents a significant evolution from the foundational framework established by Decree 13/2023, introducing a far more comprehensive and stringent regime for personal data protection. This post will analyze some critical highlights of the new PDPL 2025, with some important implications for businesses. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).
A narrower extraterritorial scope of application
The PDPL 2025 narrows its extraterritorial application compared to previous regulations. Instead of a broad rule for "foreigners' data, the PDPL 2025 explicitly applies to foreign entities that are directly involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and people of Vietnamese origin residing in Vietnam. This new provision successfully addressed the confusion and uncertainty that the earlier draft of PDPL 2025 had introduced (see our discussions here).
However, this scope of application still has the following issues:
· It has not addressed the existing ambiguity under Decree 13/2023 of whether the applicable subjects under the PDPL 2025 apply to the processing entities or data subjects (see our discussions here)
· The PDPL 2025 is also unclear on its application to foreign organizations processing the data of non-Vietnamese individuals (e.g., tourists, expatriates) within Vietnam. While Article 1.2 of the PDPL 2025 does not explicitly cover this scenario, Article 5.1 states the law applies to all "personal data protection activities on the territory of Vietnam", which may arguably cover this case.