Posts

Posted on

President Jagdeo’s land dealings not above board

President Jagdeo has finally confirmed that he has acquired land in Pradoville 2. He described the price as $5 million per acre without stating how many acres he bought. The word is that it was 2.5 acres of land, which if true is arguably the largest single plot of land by any individual in any residential area in Guyana.

Mr Jagdeo had been among the favoured comrades and strategic individuals to receive an allocation of land in Pradoville 1. He did not build until several years later, rented the house no doubt for a decent rent, and later sold it for a substantial gain. Soon after, in negotiations in which he was influential as both buyer and seller, he acquired land in Pradoville 2 at a concessionary price.

The President enjoys the following exemptions from taxes under the law:

1. on his official emoluments under the Income Tax Act;
2. from all customs duties under the Customs Act;
3. from all obligations under the Property Tax Act;
4. from all obligations under the Capital Gains Tax Act.

Under the Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act 2009 in which he was not in an insignificant conflict, Mr Jagdeo will enjoy those exemptions plus a substantial pension and other benefits until death, or until the earlier repeal of the act.

Let us look first at tax issues facing Mr Jagdeo. Since rental is not official emoluments, the net rental income from the Pradoville 1 house is taxable. But Mr Jagdeo’s tax exposure does not end there. He never lived in that house, used it as a commercial venture and then made a substantial profit on its sale. After further consideration and research, I have revised my earlier suggestion (Business Page October 31, 2010) that the gain would be subject to Capital Gains Tax except for the exemption stated at 4 above. It is now my considered view that on a proper interpretation and application of the tax laws, the gain is taxable as income under the Income Tax Act despite the fact that it arose from what would be described as an isolated transaction.

Now to Mr Jagdeo’s land dealings. The standard clauses in transports for the purchase of land in government schemes include:

a) The purchaser must build within twelve months of the passing of transport. Any person failing to do so is bound to re-convey the property to the Central Housing and Planning Authority, subject to be reimbursed with a reasonable sum for any development works undertaken during such period.

b) The purchaser cannot sell, lease, transfer or otherwise dispose of the said property within ten years from the date of transport, without the written consent of the Minister responsible for Housing. If the person wants to do so, the Central Housing and Planning Authority must be given the first option to buy.

c) Anyone who owns real property is not entitled to purchase a lot. If it is found out that the person had owned real property within the past three years he is liable to pay to the Government of Guyana or Central Housing and Planning Authority the current market value of the lot or at its option, the Government of Guyana will be entitled to repossess the said lot upon the repayment of the purchase money less expenses incurred for repossession.

That Mr Jagdeo did not build within twelve months; that he earned rentals; and that he made a gain of approximately $100 million on the sale of the Pradoville property are hardly matters of dispute. He is therefore in breach of the condition under the Pradoville 1 transport and has tax obligations in connection with the property he owned and sold there.

Mr Jagdeo’s attorney may want to make the slick argument that Pradoville 2 is not subject to the rules that apply to government lands. But no one can dispute the arithmetic that 2.5 acres of land in the Eccles housing area (Block A) and comparable land at Diamond would fetch $10 million per acre. It is clear then that $12.5 million for 2.5 acres of ocean front land in the far more exclusive Pradoville 2 cannot be justified and Mr Jagdeo of all people must know this.

When around 1970 then Minister of Works Hydraulics and Supply Hamilton Green acquired government-owned metal sheets to paal off his private property, the PPP, the Catholic Church, the TUC, professionals and all decent-minded Guyanese were outraged. At the instance of Eusi Kwayana, the Ombudsman investigated the matter and exonerated Green. Contrast that with Mr Jagdeo’s shocking and secretive acquisition, contempt for the dignity of the highest office in the land, disdain for the opinion of the people, making a joke of the Norwegians and the United Nations Champion of the Earth award, and the threat and fear of rising sea levels that Jagdeo’s land deals epitomise. It is doubtful that even Burnham knew the possibilities for misuse that his 1980 constitution offered. Hoyte and the two Jagans obviously did not contemplate it. It has taken thirty years and a Bharrat Jagdeo for those possibilities to be exploited to this degree. And we have not seen the end. As a result of his Former Presidents Benefits Act, taxpayers will have to meet for the rest of his life the cost of the maids, gardeners, water, electricity and telephones for a property that under any standards of decency would be considered with more than mere suspicion.

Posted on

Making the Stock Exchange work

Introduction
We have not heard much from or about it recently. Passing its offices at High and Robb Streets it is hard to believe that this is the institution that was set up with much hype, expectations and hope that it will make access to capital easier and cheaper, widen shareholder ownership and raise the bar of corporate governance. The Guyana Stock Exchange, or to use its more formal name the Guyana Association of Securities Companies and Intermediaries Inc, was incorporated on June 4, 2001 after several studies with the principal aim of encouraging companies to “go public,” a term generally used to mean companies offering their shares to the public. To encourage such companies the government offered them favourable tax treatment including waiver of duties payable on the transfer of shares in quoted companies and exemption from Capital Gains Tax on gains made on the disposal of shares in public companies.

The Stock Exchange has had only limited success, being largely ignored by the government and failing to attract any attention from this Finance Minister. With a private sector body that seems to have a view only if prompted by the government, its chief spokespersons in the Private Sector Commission have been similarly silent. In fact I find it hard to believe from any of their utterances that they even remember that the exchange exists.

Access to capital
This column has constantly proclaimed the importance and possibilities of a vibrant and functioning stock exchange to a market economy. Real interest rates, ie, the rate charged over the rate of inflation is still extremely high and actually discourages borrowings by the business community since the cost of funds make many investments unattractive ab initio. Then we have the government’s endless policy of mopping up liquidity that costs the taxpayers billions of dollars in interest payments. This policy encourages the financial intermediaries to make their money by charging high rates of interest on one class of lending – its borrowings group – thereby making it financially justifiable to invest the rest in government securities at rates that are less than the rate of inflation. But since the government does not see this, the private sector is automatically handicapped.

This in no ways suggests that the commercial banks should open their vaults to all and sundry or indeed that it is sensible to do so. Financed mainly by customers’ deposits, banks and other deposit taking financial institutions operate like trustees, and it takes only a couple of their larger loans to go bad to create havoc with their financial results and balance sheets. More recently the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 has added to the challenges and risks facing such entities, since the act requires lenders to have the most intimate detail about their customers.

‘Well done, Mr Minister’
Dr Ashni Singh wrapped up the debate on the 2011 budget by sweeping and disparaging remarks about the parliamentary opposition’s poor contribution during the debate. Yet, his budget speeches are themselves devoid of any real underlying vision or philosophy, more rhetoric than substance, and even in budget measures there was clearly a failure to apply any intellect or effort at analysis. It is disrespectful and arrogant of Dr Singh to believe that he alone has the capacity to speak or think through a proper national budget. In fact had it not been for the annual stealing of VAT from the people of this country, the ineptitude of the President and his successive Finance Ministers would have been on national display.

In none of his four budget speeches has Dr Singh shown any understanding of the role of a stock exchange or concern about its failure to take off, or to explore and exploit the opportunities and possibilities which a stock exchange can bring. Has the PSC not seen this or the National Competitiveness Council or the Chamber of Commerce or anyone else? Would Dr Singh include them as part of that group that makes no constructive contribution to the budget, or is their endorsement, “Well done Mr Minister,” what he considers constructive criticism?

If only we were more imaginative and innovative, if only we understand that there is trading in government paper all year round, if only we really believed that the private sector is the engine of growth and a functioning capital market its fuel, GPS and steering system, we will still be able to bring the stock exchange back to life.

As the stock exchange enters its eighth year of operation, policy holders may wish to look at the steps taken by Jamaica, where its exchange too had slowed almost to a crawl. Jamaica’s answer was the creation of a Junior Stock Exchange that within a couple of years has seen eight companies entering the market with another ten lined up for listing in 2011.

A brief history
The Exchange began trading on July 8, 2003 at which time the market value of the shares of companies to be traded was approximately $17.7 billion. At December 31, 2010, this had increased to $69.4 billion. Trading on the Exchange has been slow not only because the concept of public ownership of shares is still not strongly promoted or embraced, but also because many of the country’s public companies are controlled companies and the number of shares available for trading is therefore limited. Yet, the total value of trades on the Exchange since its inception has exceeded two billion dollars with four companies accounting for 83% – Banks DIH, (50%); DEMTOCO (13.2%), DDL (10.8%); and GBTI (10.7%).

That is confirmed by the following chart which shows the number of shares traded by year (the acronyms are expanded in the table following).

DIH – Banks DIH Limited
CCI – Caribbean Container Inc.
CBI – Citizens Bank Guyana Inc.
DBL – Demerara Bank Limited
DDL – Demerara Distillers Limited
DTC – Demerara Tobacco Company Limited
BTI – Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry Limited
PHI – Property Holdings Inc.
GSI – Guyana Stockfeeds Inc.
RBL – Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited
SPL – Sterling Products Limited

Source: Guyana Stock Exchange

Another expectation was that the Stock Exchange would have a positive impact on share prices. In the first couple of years the results exceeded expectations with substantial increases on the prices of almost every company with gains ranging from 29% to 500% in one extreme case. The market made adjustments for the shares in Demerara Tobacco Limited, the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry and Republic Bank Limited, while a significant movement in the shares of Banks DIH Limited accompanied the interest in the take-over of that company by the Trinidad company Ansa McAl.

To be continued

Posted on

There is a gap of between 15,000 and 19,000 who are paid the Old Age Pension but are not entitled under the law

Minister of Human Services Ms Priya Manickchand behaved with apoplectic rage in response to a conclusion in a report by her parliamentary colleague Mrs Sheila Holder that the number of persons to whom the Old Age Pension (OAP) is paid is inflated by 17,640 (phantom persons, according to Mrs Holder) with a loss to the state of over $1.3 billion.

Ms Manickchand reacted badly too to a cartoon in the Stabroek News of January 27 depicting her unflatteringly, prompting a letter by her which appeared with another by Mr Ivelaw Henry, her Chief Statistical Officer, both on the same day in the Stabroek News (Saturday, Jan 29) challenging Mrs Holder’s numbers. They both cited in support of the numbers being challenged projections done in November 2006 by a Mr Sonkarley T Beaie, who is described as a UN demographics expert and the holder of an MPhil, perhaps with a view to impress us.

To understand the conflicting positions, it is convenient to address three separate but related issues – statistics, the legal framework for the payment of OAP, and the arrangements in place for the payment of Old Age Pensions.

The most recent census done in 2002 shows the following data in relation to persons 65 years and over:

Between censuses, the country’s mid-year population is tracked by the Bureau of Statistics from data on births, deaths and migration, and is reported on in an appendix to the annual Budget Speech by the Minister of Finance. This is what the Bureau of Statistics reports for the years following the 2002 census: 2003 – 752,500; 2004 – 755,100; 2005 – 757,600; 2006 – 760,200; 2007 – 763,200; 2008 – 766,200, 2009 – 769,600, 2010 – 777,900.

One must always be cautious about population data and even more careful about making assumptions from them. I therefore wonder why instead of taking the actual population figure Mr Henry and his Minister chose to rely on Mr Beaie’s increasingly incorrect projections which for total population in 2010 were “wrong” by 10,000. It is fair to say that any major change in the characteristics of a population – other than through migration, a plague or a baby boom – takes place very slowly. From 1980 to 1991 the shift in the over 65 age group was a 0.16 percentage point and from 1991 to 2002 it was a 0.12 percentage point as shown in the table above. Even if we generously assume that the percentage of that group as a percentage of the current population has climbed to 4.5%, the maximum number of persons eligible for OAP would be approximately 35,000, or 7,000 less than the “around 42,000” the Minister of Finance referred to on more than one occasion in his Budget Speech.

That is not the end of the story, since not every person 65 and over is entitled to OAP. The Old Age Pensions Act sets as the conditions for eligibility for OAP that the person must have: (a) attained the age of sixty-five years; (b) been a citizen for ten years; (c) been ordinarily resident in Guyana during the last twenty years; and (d) passed a means test based on income and assets. Therefore any returnee to Guyana before 1991 is not entitled to a pension because of condition (c) and many if not most of the senior citizens living in Courida Park, Queenstown, Pradoville, Oleander Gardens, Republic Park, former senior public servants, professionals including doctors and lawyers, etc, are not entitled under condition (d).

We all have and know of countless others of our friends and relatives and their parents who do not claim Old Age Pensions. These would include persons 65 and over in the population not entitled to on account of their income and/or assets, plus those who are entitled to but do not claim because they do not know they qualify, plus those not entitled because they returned to Guyana less than twenty years ago. Those probably number between 8,000 and 12,000. To get to the number who meet all the tests, we need to deduct these from the maximum, theoretical 35,000, leaving between 23,000 and 27,000 persons who are entitled. This means that there is a gap of between 15,000 and 19,000 who are paid, but who are not entitled to the pension under the law.

At the current rate of $7,500, between $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion is being paid out unlawfully each year.

A recent Value-For-Money audit done by the Audit Office identifies a host of accounting and audit issues that could have given rise to the wide gap.

While the Audit Office must be commended for undertaking the exercise, it is regrettable that it did not attempt to put in dollar terms the range of values involved in its findings, and that it did not look at the related public assistance programme that is subject to even fewer rules and is more politicised and corrupted.

Let us put the calculation into perspective. If Old Age Pensions were paid only to persons legally entitled, then each pensioner could easily receive another $4,000 to $6,000 per month out of the money allocated in the 2011 Budget.

Ms Manickchand should now be willing to make her list publicly available for scrutiny.

Posted on

Tax rates hardly matter

Introduction
As promised, this week’s column looks at the importance of tax rates in the overall scheme of tax policy in any country. I start by saying that lower rates of tax do matter – they allow the taxpayer to retain a higher level of the income earned which they can use for re-investment or higher dividend payments to shareholders. They can also make a country more competitive since prospective investors pay some attention to countries’ nominal tax rates in their investment equation. Hence, the decision to reduce the corporate tax rates by five percentage points would be welcomed both by companies and individuals, as evidenced by the swift response of the Private Sector Commission (PSC) to the announcement by the Minister of Finance.

In making his announcement the Minister said companies benefiting from this measure would be in a position to retain and invest a significantly higher share of their profits. While some may suggest that the reduction in the tax rate had an unmistakable eye on the upcoming general elections, they cannot argue with the effect advanced by the Minister since by definition a reduced tax charge leaves more after-tax profits which are available for investments, higher dividend payments and related party loans. But seemingly too quick to please the political directorate, it was the private sector representatives who stated that the reduction would make Guyana competitive in terms of tax rates.

The private sector leaders travel around and must know that the corporate rate in two of our major Caricom trading partners (Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados) is 25% while our reduced rates are 30% for non-commercial companies, 40% for commercial companies and 45% for telephone companies. Non-regional investors on the other hand would be familiar with much lower tax rates in their own countries, so that our 30%/40% would still sound to them extremely high.

Government failure
The biggest but unacknowledged problem for the private sector is the failure by this government to address tax policy and tax reform which it has been promising for eighteen years. For example, tax policy would address how we treat one sector over another, whether a single person should receive the same personal allowance as the single parent with a number of children, whether there should be differentials in tax rates, the balance between direct and indirect taxes, extending the use of the withholding tax to domestic contractors, etc. Unfortunately what passes for tax policy is the demand for tax revenues to finance a bloated, politicised and inefficient bureaucracy and a government that seems to have an insatiable appetite to spend, spend and spend.

I strongly believe that the flat, across-the-board reduction of five percentage points is both intellectually lazy and politically cowardly. If the officials of the Ministry of Finance were to read the report of the Bank of Guyana (latest mid-year 2010) or indeed the statistics in their own National Estimates, they would see that the business community is increasingly investment-averse despite all the tax and contracts goodies thrown their way. As the following table shows, growth in the economy is being driven by the public sector.

[table to be inserted]

Source: National Estimates 2011

Goodies
The tax laws are now replete with all forms of incentives, some of which are general and others specific, some found in legislation and others in agreements signed by the political arm of the government. Some are intended to encourage exports (the export allowance), investments (the Income Tax in Aid of Industry) which also provides tax holidays for investments in the hinterland, low cost housing and exemption from VAT.

More than a decade after its introduction and generous exemptions for public companies investments, the Stock Exchange remains extremely inactive with no new issuers, i.e., companies going public, or existing companies offering new issues. In the absence of rules on thin capitalisation and the differential tax treatment of loans versus dividends, even our larger public companies find it cheaper to borrow than to raise new capital. There was a time when Banks DIH and DDL could be relied upon to make rights issue or bonus shares which allowed for some greater liquidity in the market. They have not needed to do so.

The commercial banks hold deposits of more than $230 billion dollars of which loans and advances, inclusive of the public sector loans, amounted to $68.9 billion. For several years the government has been critical of the commercial banks and Minister Manzoor Nadir, the self-appointed chief spokesperson of the 2011 Budget is on record as stating that “the commercial banks have been penalizing our people for too long.” He is also on record for cautioning against differential tax rates to protect the locally manufactured products since they “protect local inefficiencies.” That Mr Nadir now supports the things he had earlier railed against shows how politicised the tax system is, how it is influenced by the changing tides of political opportunitism and why we have a tax system that is, by any measure other than revenue collection, so dysfunctional.

Drivers
Tax policy has to be driven by a vision and relevant information. This column has called for more relevant information to be disclosed in public documents. Principal among these would be the annual report of the Guyana Revenue Authority which the Minister of Finance has failed to table in the National Assembly for some time now. Let us see how much the construction sector, the bauxite sector, the forestry sector, the agriculture sector including rice, sugar and other crops sectors contribute to the national coffers, and how much remissions, rebates and holidays they receive which may amount to billions each year. And yes, we should be able to see how much each region contributes and compare this with their receipts from the central government.

The Minister has access to data that would tell him that the bulk of the corporate taxes collected by the GRA is paid literally by a handful of companies. These are the commercial banks, Banks DIH and DDL, GT&T and Digicel and the oil distribution companies. The majority of companies could not care about tax rate – they decide how much tax they will pay and have their accounts prepared accordingly. This of course is also true of the self-employed, for which Regent Street is a metonym and to which political protest is as applicable as tax evasion is. There is a strong suspicion that setting a payment level for any period is also true of VAT, and as I have written before in this column, that some politicians have given pledges to the business community for tax support in exchange for votes.

Conclusion
Tax policy and tax reform will clearly have to wait for some years. The Jagdeo-Singh duo is comfortable with the status quo under which urban workers and consumers are the biggest contributors. They are equally comfortable with some sectors and segments making no contribution to the national coffers while demanding so much. The parliamentary debate on the 2011 Budget will close without any discussion on either tax policy or tax reform. In that sense, we are all losers.

Posted on

Mr Nadir here are some of the state entities with poor audit records

Mr. Manzoor Nadir’s letter on the 2011 budget (Stabroek News, January 23, 2011: Dr. Ashni Singh’s credentials are impeccable) was the kind of “honesty” that Guyanese have come to expect from this itinerant political leader. Mr. Nadir accuses me of being envious of Dr. Ashni Singh’s brilliance and credentials; invites me to join the leadership of the PNC/R and then goes on to praise the 2011 Budget. The second is the most convenient to dispatch first: Mr. Nadir must know that I declined an invitation to be nominated for the presidential candidacy of the PNCR and I also refused his invitation to go on the TUF slate for every election since 1997. I now address the other issues.

I last had a cordial discussion with Mr. Nadir this Tuesday, January 19, the day after the 2011 Budget. He acknowledged my correction of a misleading claim he made last year on the performance of the economy and that he had begun to repeat this year. He also indicated that he relies on the Ministry of Finance for some of his numbers. This gentleman is the leader of the country’s only declared anti-communist party who gave himself completely to the country’s only declared Marxist party, one that has distinguished itself by the single word corruption! Maybe he is honestly trying to correct the historical wrong of his party’s joining with the PNC to cause the PPP to lose office.

His accuracy or honesty, or both, come again into question in trying to attribute to me personally an official publication of Ram & McRae, of which I am one of three partners. The analysis did not question Dr. Ashni Singh’s credentials and I would have hoped that Mr. Nadir would recognise the analysis – done by a team of the firm’s dedicated and professional staff working through Budget night – was about the Budget and not about either Dr. Singh or me. In fact I now say that Dr. Singh’s credentials stand in marked contrast to the increasingly intellectual bankruptcy of his and the PPP/C’s annual budgets.

I would avoid Mr. Nadir’s personal attacks and forays into my mind and motives and address only the essential points in issue. As the Ram & McRae analysis pointed out, and which Mr. Nadir could not dispute, the personal allowance of $40,000 now is in real terms less than the value of the $35,000 when it was set at that level three years ago. Nor can he dispute that the Minister did not indicate the cost of the tax proposals in the budget speech, a cost that just might show that businesses are expected to receive more from the 2011 Budget than the workers, pensioners and indigents.

On the issue of contract employees, Mr. Nadir correctly quoted from the firm’s analysis but then goes off into an excursion into diversion by explaining that “in 2010 we (government) moved all the cleaners, handypersons, drivers and lower level skills to contracted positions.” Mr. Nadir, like his political boss, must think this is a country of fools to believe that “cleaners, handypersons, drivers and lower level skills” can account for a 40% increase in that group. For the record I draw his attention to Table 9 of Volume 1 of the National Estimates, account code # 6115 Semi-Skilled Operatives and Unskilled, which shows an increased, not a reduced allocation, even after the low level “move”. The same applies to Temporary Employees and Clerical and Office Support!

Mr. Nadir must also know that his group of lower level skills is commingled with political appointees such as Reepu Daman Persaud, Feroze Mohammed, Harry Persaud Nokta, Shyam Nokta, Odinga Lumumba, Dr. Randy Persaud, Dr. Prem Persaud, Gail Teixeira and Kwame McKoy and hundreds of others at the Office of the President, the Ministry of Finance and indeed throughout the public service. Mr. Nadir should tell us which one of these contract persons earns less than $500,000 per month, not argue over the minimum wage about which “his” government has a questionable record. And he might wish to tell us whether the decision to treat the lower level persons as part of the group of contractors was done to disguise the average pay of this group after I had exposed it two years ago.

Stating that I used a broadside to describe the state of audits of public entities, he dared me to name any of those entities. Does he need any more than NICIL, the entity of which the Finance Minister is Chairman and through which state assets are diverted for unlawful purposes, and which disdainfully refuses to have an audit or to file an annual return? Just in case he needs more, here we go: Go-Invest, Guyana Energy Agency, Institute of Applied Science and Technology, Integrity Commission, GINA. Need some more? What about National Sports Commission, Guyana National Bureau of Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.

Only someone who has not read the Public Corporations Act or the Guyana Revenue Authority Act would make such an uninformed and incorrect statement that it is the Auditor General who is responsible to report to Parliament on entities falling under those Acts. In fact, the Acts require the entities to submit, within six months of the end of the year, their audited financial statements and directors’ report to the Minister of Finance or other relevant Minister. It is the Minister who has responsibility for tabling them in the National Assembly. It gives me no pleasure to correct Mr. Nadir twice in one week.

Mr. Nadir does not help his Minister by his reference to the Audit Office, which provides evidence of a relationship between the Minister and that Office which constitutes a uniquely bad case of professional independence. Or by his questions about statistics which we know emanate from the Stats Bureau and the Bank of Guyana over which the Minister of Finance exerts both official and improper influence.

Two points in closing: one, it is the sycophancy of people like Minister Nadir that encourages the excesses, improprieties and illegalities of the Jagdeo Administration; and two, I hereby publicly invite Mr. Nadir and the Finance Minister to appear on Plain Talk to discuss the 2011 Budget. If Dr. Singh is unwilling, I invite Mr. Nadir to bring along one of his TUF colleagues. That is, if he can find one.