Tag: QA II

Posted on

A close-up look at the QA II deal

Introduction
When the Ministry of Finance belatedly broke its silence last month on the concessions given by the government to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc (QA II) it asked Guyanese to ignore such considerations as transparency and the rule of law and sought to shift the debate to the “ultimate question that needs to be asked… whether these investments are a positive development for Guyana.” The two statements issued by the ministry within one day of each other contained what were some very categorical representations: that the package involved investments of US$30 million; that the investments by the group would create 600 jobs in Georgetown; and that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between Go-Invest and QAII in March 2008. The facts are different. They show how a serious erosion of the tax base by the extension of generous concessions unlawfully given to a favoured few contribute to the creation of an uneven playing field that instead of encouraging investment has the direct opposite effect. Such action entrenches and enriches a few and effectively creates a monopolistic situation at the expense of potential competitors and the economy in areas as diverse as construction, mining and forestry, with the ever loss-making Barama, exploiter extraordinaire of the country’s forest resources being the shining example.

For all the suggestions of bigness, QA II up to a couple of years ago had a share capital of fifty-thousand Guyana dollars (US$250) and the government should be interested in where the US$30 million dollars for the investments will come from. Even with generous and free financing by the state, the group has had to borrow hundreds of millions from the banking system, even as the parent’s books showed a negative net asset position.

Pattern of favours
The original investment in GPC was $460 million for a 60% stake in the company by Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. An additional 30% was acquired for G$200 million. It would have been reasonable and financially prudent for the additional shares to have been sold at a premium since they allowed QAII to consolidate its control.  In fact the Privatisation Unit sold the group the additional shares at what appears to be a discount of at least $30 million.

By way of an article earlier this week in the Stabroek News we learn that QA II’s main operating subsidiary, New GPC Inc, has benefited from special exemption from the tender process contrary to law, but as Minister Ramsammy says, with more innocence than information, in accordance with a cabinet decision – as though cabinet were paramount to the law. The New GPC has been handpicked for “major contracts” to procure medical supplies on behalf of the Ministry of Health and the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation whose Medical Superintendent Dr Madan Rambaran is on the Board of GPC – another conflict of interest that is now so much part of public life in Guyana.

Free money
But the concessions go further: at December 31, 2006 the company had been advanced close to half a billion dollars by the Ministry of Health and the GHPC “to procure medical supplies on their behalf.” A government that taxes its citizens till they scream and that perpetually fails to refund overpaid taxes in a timely manner finances a supplier of products that can no doubt be procured directly and perhaps even at lower overall cost. The advance of $160M by the Ministry of Health and $314M by the GHPC alone accounted for well over 40% of the 2006 purchases by the company! Then the company turns around and invests $140M of that money in the Berbice Bridge Company of which $50M is in the form of a loan stock earning a tax-free interest of 11% and bonds of $10 million earning 9% interest.

For all its boasts about being the “Caribbean’s leading pharmaceutical manufacturer” the company’s production labour accounts for under 3% of turnover. At $47 million production labour barely exceeds depreciation – hardly evidence of any key focus on job creation. The company’s financial statements also show incredibly that it exports all its manufactured products and that it benefits from another general tax concession that is in violation of the country’s international obligations as pointed out in the Business Page of January 13, 2008.

The Fabulous Five
The above is a summary of various agreements signed by Dr Ashni Singh, Minister of Finance and Dr Ramroop of the QA II companies. These agreements make disturbing reading for the appearance of carelessness and lack of expertise on the part of the Privatisation Board, Go-Invest and the Ministry of Finance. These are some of the worst agreements I have ever seen in multi-million US dollar documents. There is no preamble linking “Supplementary Investment Agreements” to the so-called Memorandum of Understanding which the Ministry of Finance claims was signed in March 2008, or to any principal agreement. The agreements contain several blanks, and manuscript changes are not even initialled, a most elementary requirement that raises questions as to the dates of the making or modification of the documents. What is worse is that all the agreements preceded the much touted MOU, in one case by several months. Again any professionally done, arms’ length transaction would begin with a Memorandum of Understanding to be followed by supplementary agreements as certain details are worked out and pre-conditions are met.

Lots of toilets…
The claims by the government and the company in their public pronouncements of 600 jobs being created by the investments appear a gross exaggeration. In fact according to these documents the number is just half of that when the projects come fully on stream. A careful examination of the items approved for tax exemptions “for one year beginning from the date of signing the Agreement” reveals a surprising number of similarities between the items approved for Healthcare Life Sciences Inc and Health International Inc. Examples are one complete switchboard system; 500 x 5/8˝ steel rods; 1000 x 0.5 mild steel rods etc, 50 length 0.75˝ armor flex insulation; and one 500 KVA generator each. There is a carte blanche agreement for tax concessions on the contents of thirty-one pallets for Global Printing, and one must sympathise with the customs officer who has to determine whether they constitute “One complete printing press.”  The list of items for Healthcare includes only a few real big ticket items (500 KVA generator, one mini-van and two double cab pick-up and four forklifts) which along with the cables, breakers and switches hardly appear to amount to the US$9 million claimed to be invested by this company.

Some of the items approved for concessions appear to be more appropriate for domestic use while others are inflated. One of the entities (Global Textile) has approval for forty-six toilet sets, “12 ctns Briggs China lavatories” and “12 ctns white rf toilet express” while Healthcare Life Sciences has approval for another twenty toilet sets and twenty wash basins. This quantity of toilets seems surprising and yet there is nothing to suggest that any of these is for the newspaper company.

Kudos to the press
The story of QA II and its investments showed the Guyana media at its investigative and persistent best, helped no doubt by President Jagdeo’s own uninformed outburst. It has allowed us to see, admittedly in one instance only, of how state business is transacted behind closed doors by a few who consider laws a matter of (in)convenience and raises the troubling question of what else might be taking place with this and other favoured investors that the government does not wish us to know about. It exposes the serious and costly deficiencies on the part of the Georgetown Hospital and the Ministries of Health and Finance, the Cabinet, Go-Invest, the Privatisation Board and the GRA. It provides ample evidence of how this government is generous to their friends at the expense of the people. It is a failure of people and systems that allows the careless granting of concessions without a proper analysis of proposals submitted while the apparent absence of adequate follow-up mechanisms amounts to a gross dereliction of responsibility for which no one will be held accountable.

Still more questions
The revelation of these agreements does not mean that all questions have been answered. The famous MOU of March 2008 is still a state secret, and it is still not clear what pharmaceutical products the US$9 million dollar Healthcare Life Sciences Inc will manufacture that GPC cannot do or which of the two medical companies has been granted tax holidays. Or quite what kind of export Processing Zone one of the new companies, Health International Inc, will establish and how different that will be from the kind that has been called for by the private sector for many years but ignored by the government. Despite the continuing publicity, the government has not tabled the agreements in the National Assembly, fuelling fears that there may be even more to hide or that the government believes that accountability and transparency are a matter of form and not substance.

But the exposure has shown how important it is for the Privatisation Board and Go-Invest to be restructured and to include persons of competence and independence both at the directorial and executive levels. It is farcical to have the Minister of Finance not only sitting but chairing the Privatisation Board which makes recommendations to Cabinet which then instructs him to act on those recommendations.

Conclusion
The concessions and real monetary benefits the Ramroop Group has enjoyed make it practically impossible for any competitor – in any of the group’s activities – to operate successfully, a fact that should not be overlooked by those who are taken in by claims of those who seek further concessions. Let us understand that in creating effective monopolies we encourage high profit-seeking and prices, and stifle competition – the consumers’ best friend. This is not an anti-business or anti-investment position. The call for transparency and compliance with the law by those in power cannot be more urgent, even as we welcome new investments.

Posted on

QA II concessions, the Minister of Finance and more conflicts

Introduction
In the absence of a Ministry of Planning and Development, the Ministry of Finance takes on immense importance. I therefore publicly greeted the announcement of Dr Ashni Singh as Minister of Finance not as a fellow accountant with training in accountability – of course – integrity, competence, capacity for hard work and an independent streak, but as one who would be confident enough to control expenditure, rein in President Jagdeo’s capacity to ignore the strictures of the constitution in relation to the Lotto funds or to spend first and seek approval after, evident with the frequency and value of supplementary provisions requested in the National Assembly.

More than even the Ministers of Trade or Agriculture, the Minister of Finance is the point person with the private sector, and by his action and even pronouncements can directly affect investments, jobs, performance of the economy, interest and exchange rates and share prices. He is the subject minister for the NIS, the Bank of Guyana and the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), appointing their boards often with people of his choice and under his influence, and responsible for the Companies Act and a raft of other legislation. He decides who gets tax holidays, budget allocations (or not), and how insurance companies and financial houses are regulated. His knowledge of the tax laws, their role and operation informs his determination of not only the level of taxation in the country but also the fairness of the system and how the burden is borne by various segments of the tax-paying public.

The overflowing VAT
In the period since Dr Singh’s appointment in September 2006, he has tested the public’s confidence in him in critical areas with his relationship with the private sector and civil society often being at best, polite. In both years following his appointment, he not only broke with tradition but with the implied constitutional requirement (Article 13) to engage stakeholders in pre-budget consultations. He failed even to acknowledge a request by the women’s group Red Thread to meet him on the effects of VAT on women in particular. He did not correct a misleading date (September 15, 2007) on his 2007 mid-year report presented to the National Assembly in November 2007 despite this being drawn to his attention and it reported to have been behind related delays in 2007 by the Bank of Guyana and the Statistical Bureau to publish important information on the economy.

In his first full year as minister the National Assembly rubber-stamped some of the most expensive supplementary provisions ever made in the country ($18 billion), witnessed an unacceptable level of budget under-statements on revenue with VAT alone being under-budgeted by 76 % and the combined effect of two taxes that were supposed to be revenue neutral (VAT and Excise Tax) being under-budgeted by 48%.
The consequence of this was the steepest single year rise in the tax burden this country has witnessed for as long as statistics are readily available (see table below) and a massive 10% increase in the 7-year period 2000 -2007, putting Guyana in the league of rich countries despite the government’s inability to offer the poor and the unemployed basic assistance, or citizens, security, and the continuing flood of migration to any country that Guyanese can enter – legally or otherwise. Amidst all the confusion caused by some misleading statements on VAT from government spokespersons and the Guyana Revenue Authority, the Minister stayed behind a wall of silence. That silence was extended to the saga of the QA II concessions until his ministry responded to increasing concerns expressed by the public.

Tax to GDP ratio – selected years 1992 to 2007

1992     1996     2000     2004     2007

42%        40%          37%         40%         47%

Source: Ministry of Finance National Estimates

Intervention
The intervention came in the form of a wordy four-page clarification from the Ministry of Finance on June 15 and a statement issued through GINA on June 16 responding to a Stabroek News article on the QA II saga on the same day. The clarification restated the government’s commitment to openness and transparency, claimed that fiscal concessions are rule-based and not discretionary, recounted the recent history of the law on tax holidays and sought to blame the saga on poor legislative drafting.

An examination of the statements, however, shows that they are misleading in terms of how the law is applied. The Minister had played a role in the QA II saga wearing several hats, some of which would have involved obvious conflicts and at least wearing one of those hats he should have realised that the law as passed and assented to by President Jagdeo did “not reflect Government’s intent.”

While it is true that the scope for tax holidays is limited to geographical regions and particular types of activities, it is far from correct to suggest that the tax holiday laws are not discretionary. The relevant section of the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act quoted in the clarification provides only “that the Minister may grant an exemption from the Corporation Tax,” which can hardly be considered mandatory. Did the Minister and Cabinet restrict their consideration of the tax holiday provisions to Corporation Tax as the law provides, and not to income tax? In other words, did he give any preferred hotelier or other non-incorporated entity any tax holiday because it was “pioneering” and would he say what authority he used for doing so?

A stretch
Under the claim of transparency the statement refers to “substantial information on tax exemptions” included in annual reports of the Guyana Revenue Authority. It seems a real stretch to consider a total figure as “substantial information” when the quantified information applies only to concessions by the Customs and Trade Administration in respect of goods imported by or for a pot-pourri of products or sectors. There is no information on the beneficiaries of tax holidays and on any Income, Corporation or other taxes remitted.

While the President on the occasion when he castigated Mr. Yesu Persaud spoke of the concessions in the past tense, the Ministry’s statement confidently states that the QA II concessions are subject to approval by the GRA and the Ministry of Finance [sic]. Are we to believe that a matter taken to Cabinet in May 2007 had not been approved one year later and that the company would have proceeded with their multi-million dollar investment only with “subject to” approval?

The statements also tell us that the Minister is Chairman of the Privatisation Board which made the recommendation to the Cabinet of which he is a key member and that the decision by Cabinet was subject to approval by the GRA and the Minister of Finance – confusing to most ordinary minds. Since as the “clarification” states that “Cabinet’s decision is the definitive authority for subsequent decisions and actions,” do the GRA and the Minister have any discretion in the matter, whatever the law says to the contrary?

Pass the buck
But placing the blame on the framers of the 2003 legislation raises further questions. At the time of the 2003 legislation Dr. Singh was not only the Budget Director in the Ministry of Finance and should therefore have been concerned about the legislation’s potential revenue impact, but he was also a member of the board of the GRA as a nominee of the Ministry of Finance and in that capacity too should have perused the legislation both for impact and flaws. Yet it has taken two years after granting concessions under the act as Minister, before there has been any acknowledgment that the act is flawed.

The ministry’s statement also sought to place, incorrectly in my view, the concessions for QA II on the same level as the Berbice bridge for which there is separate legislation passed subsequent to the 2003 legislation (Act 3 of 2006), specifically exempting the income of and dividends and interest paid by the concessionaire from corporation, income and withholding tax, and income earned by contractors and subcontractors to be exempted from income tax for the concession period.

Given the confusing statements made by spokespersons who are either expected to know or apply the relevant laws, the proposed seminar on privatisation and fiscal concessions to be hosted by the Privatisation Unit (of the Ministry of Finance) on July 9 becomes all the more necessary, and it is clear that the list of participants should be widened. Moreover, while it is never good to hold up applications regarding investments it may be preferable to place such applications on hold pending corrections and clarifications.

Conclusion
But there is one final issue that neither the clarification nor the statement addressed. Under section 38 of the Investment Act 2004, concessions granted under the section of the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act dealing with tax holidays require a procedural audit by the “Auditor General or any suitably qualified person” designated by him. The only professionally qualified accountant in that office is the wife of the Minister of Finance, which potentially could unfairly place her in the unenviable position of being associated with adverse comments on concessions that her husband would have granted. Whatever opinion is issued by the Audit Office and whatever Chinese Wall may have been put in place, this is a most blatant case of conflict of interest in a most important function of the country’s administration. The respective functions simply cannot co-exist and the Public Accounts Committee should immediately step in to end it.

Next week: BP turns its attention to the operations of the general tax laws under the watch of the President and the Minister of Finance.