Vietnam foreign borrowing limits for 2014
The foreign borrowing limits applicable to the Government and companies in Vietnam have just been issued last week under Decision 477 of the Prime Minister. Based on these limits, the State Bank of Vietnam will give its approval for foreign borrowing including offshore bond issuance by companies in Vietnam during 2014. Under Decision 477, for the year 2014:
- commercial borrowing by companies which are guaranteed by the Government is capped at US$ 2.8 billion;
- commercial borrowing by companies which are not guaranteed by the Government is capped at US$ 3.8 billion. However, this limit may be increased during the third quarter, if necessary;
- the Government may issue an international bond but the amount is not mentioned; and
- various ministries including the Ministry of Planning and Investment, the Ministry of Industry and Trade are instructed to evaluate its guarantee exposures in various BOT or large infrastructure projects. It is not clear if this instruction means that the Government now considers its obligations under various Government Guarantee and Undertakings for large scale infrastructure projects equivalent to its guaranteed obligations under foreign loans regulations.
On 14 June 2025, the National Assembly passed the amended Corporate Income Tax Law 2025 (CIT Law 2025). Among other things, this legislation is expected to bring significant changes in determining the method of calculating tax for capital transfer and securities transfer transactions (Capital Gains Tax) undertaken by foreign companies. This post aims to provide a comprehensive and clear overview by analyzing and comparing these new regulations with those stipulated in the Corporate Income Tax Law 2008 (CIT Law 2008).
1) Definition of Taxable Income Arising in Vietnam for Foreign Companies
A key area of adjustment in the CIT Law 2025 relates to the definition of taxable income arising in Vietnam for foreign companies, making it more transparent.
Under the CIT Law 2008, the specific definition of such income was not explicitly clarified within the law itself; rather, it was detailed in Decree 218/2013 guiding the CIT Law 2008. In contrast, the CIT Law 2025 has directly incorporated this definition, clearly stating that taxable income arising in Vietnam for foreign companies is income originating from Vietnam, irrespective of the location where business activities are conducted.
On 27 June 2025, as a foundational step for establishing an international financial hub in Vietnam, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopts the Resolution 222 on the International Financial Center (IFC) in Vietnam (specifically in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang City) (Resolution 222). However, when compared to international best practices, the Resolution reveals several weaknesses that may deter international investors.
Based on a comparative analysis, here are the main drawbacks:
Isolation from Vietnam domestic markets – Perhaps the most important benefits of investing in an IFC in Vietnam is the opportunity to access Vietnam domestic capital and financial market. Unfortunately, Resolution 222 does not clearly contemplate how an IFC member can invest or interact with Vietnam domestic capital and financial market. Without a better access to Vietnamese domestic markets, investors from regional financial centers may have less incentives to move to the IFC in Vietnam.
Unstable and unpredictable legal framework: Resolution 222 took effect from 1 September 2025. After five years, the legal framework contemplated by Resolution 222 will be reviewed by the National Assembly and may be replaced by a Law on International Financial Center. Existing projects can continue to operate under “existing” legal frameworks at such time. Given the amount of implementing legislation and the infrastructure required, it may take one to two years for the IFC to be up and running. Accordingly, investors may only have around three to four years to actually run theirs businesses before a potential new law will be issued. During the operation of the IFC, a regulation can be issued to limit the rights of IFC members to ensure “national interests” and “prevent threats against national security”. This provision is very broad and vague and could allow IFC regulators to change their regulations at any time.
The Vietnamese Government has recently issued Decree 168/2025 on enterprise registration, which replaces the previous Decree 1/2021. This blog post highlights several significant changes and clarifications to enterprise registration procedures under Decree 168/2025.
1) Additional forms of documents evidencing the completion of capital contribution and transfer
Decree 168/2025 introduces new options for documenting the completion of capital contributions or capital transfers in the enterprise registration application dossiers as follows:
For evidence of the completion of a transfer, one of the following documents is now accepted:
• A copy or extract of the member register or shareholder register.
• A copy or original of the liquidation minutes of the transfer contract.
• Bank confirmation of completed payment.
• Other documents validly proving the completion of share or capital contribution transfer as prescribed by law.
Decree 153/2020 (as amended), which governs private corporate bond offerings, creates ambiguity concerning the permissible use of bond proceeds, especially when parent companies aim to finance their subsidiaries.
Decree 153/2020 stipulates that bond proceeds can be used for implementing investment programmes and projects, restructuring debts of the issuing enterprise itself, or for other purposes sanctioned by specialised laws. The ambiguity stems specifically from how the qualifier “of the issuing enterprise itself” applies to these permissible uses. This leads to two primary interpretations:
The recently enacted law amending the Investment Law 2020 (Amendment Law 2025), effective 1 July 2025, introduces the following key changes:
1. Major Decentralization of Approval Authority
1.1. Under the Amendment Law 2025, the Provincial People's Committees, rather than the Prime Minister under the previous law, have the authority to grant investment policy approval for the following projects: