Tag Archive | portfolio committee on mineral resources

MPRDA Bill returned to National House of Leaders

Some sort of movement on MPRDA at last……..

sent to clients 18 March…..In a parliamentary document recently published it is shown that the Mineral and Petroleumcoal mining Resources Development Amendment (MPRDA) Bill has been sent on a token trip through the National House of Traditional Leaders for comment in thirty days and then to be returned to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources.

This is probably for some temporary major changes to be made to the Bill after debate until such time as two new Bills, one for the mining industry and one for the oil and gas industry, are drafted in time to come.     No doubt this movement was initiated as the result of the recent meeting between President Zuma and business leaders.

The extraordinary affair of the MPRDA has been going on since the first draft of the Bill was published for comment in December 2012 regulating extensively the exploitation of minerals and resources and the legal movement and transfer of resource rights.    Both industries have their own and very different BEE charters and the single Bill deals with both and many empowerment factors.

Core issues


Two issues
of note were that in the new Bill as originally proposed the Minister was to form a new “entity” which will “promote onshore and offshore exploration for and production of petroleum” and which will also “receive, store, maintain, interpret, add value to, evaluate, disseminate or deal in all geological or geophysical information” relating to petroleum and gas exploration matters.

Secondly, sections 80 and 84 of the anchor Act were to be amended to provide for State participation in any successful minerals and gas/oil development exercises carried out by the private sector, the Bill providing for a State right to free carried interest in all such exploration and production rights.
Specific details regarding the extent of the “free carry” were to be published in a government gazette, a figure of 20%susan shabangu being bandied about at the time.   “We are on the path of changing the mining and petroleum industry in South Africa, whether you like it or not,” said Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu earlier in 2014.

Strong views

Accompanied by a public outcry and strongly worded objections from private industry, foreign companies and other institutions, the Bill reached Parliament virtually unchanged.    Again, brought up before the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources in public hearings, were strong objections from Opposition MPs and institutionalised industry, neither of whom minced their words, describing the Bill, in one case, as a “self-destruction tool of South Africa’s investment climate.”

Nevertheless, the ANC Alliance continued on their course and the Bill was hammered through in a rush at the end of the parliamentary term, the ANC summonsing through its whip sufficient numbers.

In the background, as the Bill went through Parliament, was the fact that the Department of Mineral Resources and the Department of Energy were only just completing their split apart. Crossed wires were the order of the day.

Nothing happened

Since that date the Bill has sat in limbo; a new Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi Ngoako Ramatlhodiagreeing shortly after with the with mining companies and the Chamber of Mines that the best and fastest way forward to bring certainty to the mining and oil drilling industry would be to pass the Bill subject to amendments based on a new approach to the mining beneficiation issue.

Secondly, the matter of state “free carry” could be dropped.

At the time it was guessed that at least a year and a half would be the delay if two replacement Bills were to be drafted, separating mineral resources from oil and gas in the light of the fact that both have separate and very different BEE charters. The quicker alternative to bring some certainty was that temporary amendments to the existing Bill should be made.

Despite this, the Bill has just stuck right there, in the President’s office, until recently, now moving back togas exploration sea Parliament because, as is suspected, business leaders in their recent discussions with President Zuma must have drawn his attention to the continuing lack of lack of certainty in both industries because of unknown legislative changes about to occur and an apparent inability by Cabinet to give clear policy leads.

So where are we?

So as far as the MPRDA Bill is concerned, there is movement in the goods sidings but whether any train is about to start on a journey can only be known when a meeting is scheduled by the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources. Yet another minister is the train driver.

Previous articles on category subject

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Cabinet,Presidential, Energy, Facebook and Twitter, Fuel,oil,renewables, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Special Recent Posts, Trade & Industry0 Comments

SARS understaffed to deal with transfer pricing

Davis report on transfer pricing confirms …

NB: This article updated after two recent meetings of committee on transfer pricing. Report with clients.

JudgeDennisDavisSouth African Revenue Service (SARS) was completely lacking in sufficient staff to deal effectively with transfer pricing in order to spot illegal transactions, said Judge Dennis Davis in his capacity as chairperson of the Tax Review Committee when addressing the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources.

He also pointed out that SARS, in any case, was also not provided with sufficient information by declaring companies, particularly multinationals as legislation stood at present, to further probe cross-border transactions to determine whether the movements involved the illicit transfer of profits from high-tax to low-tax regimes.

He told parliamentarians that whilst about three years ago SARS had conducted a very specific and targeted investigation, and had raised in one financial year alone some R1.1bn, this only illustrated the far larger amount of “haemorrhaging” that was taking place.

Not transfers but manipulation…

The Judge had to explain to MPs time and time again that transfer pricing in itself was not illegal, only any manipulative tax behaviour usually involving non-declaration or undervaluation.

Judge Dennis Davis referred to the recent highly publicised case involving HSBC where some R23bn directly involved the SA fiscus “and which was under review by SARS”.  He also drew attention to the fact that as a result of disclosures during the Marikana inquiry, Lonmin appeared to have profited by some R280m in saved taxes by transfers.

railfreight“Fictitious transfer pricing declarations were the problem”, he said, where multinationals managed to declare profits which appeared lower in countries with higher tax rates and higher in countries with lower tax rates. This occurred where the culprits identified transfers of intangibles for less than full value; showed over capitalisation of tax group companies and declared contractual arrangements with low risk tax environments.

Digging deeper

The Davis Tax Committee had recommended to National Treasury Department that the current unit in SARS, dedicated to base erosion and profit shifting be strengthened. At present this constituted only twenty personnel. “Building up this team would enable SARS to dig deeper into companies’ affairs”, he said.

Billy JoubertBilly Joubert, Tax Director, Deloittes, pointed to the fact that transfer pricing was in fact a “neutral” instrument in terms of its intention to promote industrialisation because its purpose was in fact to achieve arm’s length profits across the value chain.

Transfer pricing rules based on international best practice provided investors with certainty and it also protected the tax base of the relevant country, he said.   It was therefore an essential part of any tax system, providing taxpayers did not manipulate prices by shifting profits to lower tax jurisdictions. He condemned the practice.

Arm’s length reporting in question

Joubert said South Africa was an observer and an active contributor to the OECD and their transfer pricing guidelines was a resultant consensus document. It was critical for SA to align with the tax policies adopted by their trading partners where they could, endorse “the arm’s length principle” adopting the guidelines in their own domestic environment and follow global standards.

He said that SARS had achieved the collection of approximately R5bn over the last three years from some 30 audits and adjustments of R20bn.

He concluded that SARS’s new rules “were now more closely aligned to the global standard and possibly ahead of many other countries”, noting, however, there was a lack of certainty in terms of outdated practice notes; limited guidance on implementation of “secondary adjustment mechanisms”; and also a lack of interaction with double tax agreements which were closely allied to the process.

Back to understaffing…

Prof Johann Hattingh of UCT pointed to the fact that the Davis Tax Committee recommended full compulsory OECD style taxpayer information disclosure and there “was more than enough in the legislative armoury of SARS to effectively combat intercompany mispricing or tax abusive behaviour”.

However, he also pointed to the fact that SARS was understaffed and simply outnumbered by input of declarations to effectively implement transfer pricing legislation across a broad spectrum.

Prof Hattingh explained that insofar as tax interpretation was concerned it was a complex and ultimately subjective evaluation because of the difficulty in identifying intangibles and services which were transferred or provided and the arm’s length price at which they were valued. Even the whole definition of an “arms length transaction” was subject to difficult legal, accounting and tax interpretation, he pointed out.

OECD the genisis

He said all BRICS countries, except Brazil, took the OECD guidelines as a starting point, Brazil using fixed international commodity prices which provided more certainty but which conflicted in many cases with double tax agreements, since double tax could arise in one of the countries involved in transfers.

EFF member Freddie Shivambu said that in terms of SARS, staffing with skilled personnel was not the only problem as far as could see but there was a lack of clarity on the way forward.  Judge Davis replied that there were indeed criminal elements involved, such as illegal siphoning of money and under-declaration of assets, but his committee had established “empirical evidence” that the amount lost to the fiscus was not always as high as it was reported to be.

But the way forward, he re-empahsised, involved updating wording of legislation; the ability to follow up on “arms length transactions” and more staff to do this. His Committee’s report was with the President.

ANC says transfer pricing is manipulation

Some ANC members pointed to the fact that some multinationals were making “massive profits and not contributing to the country’s agenda to address poverty, inequality and unemployment and transformation” and that transfer pricing should be banned. Others called for it to be declared “illegal”.

They were corrected again by Judge Davis who explained that transfer pricing was a legitimate necessary process for companies doing legitimate transactions and as such it could not and would not be “banned” or illegalised.

D Macpherson DAMr D Macpherson (DA) joined the debate to say that the issue of illicit transfer pricing should not become a political matter but that it was a national concern for all, pointing to the fact that whilst transfer pricing was one issue, the country was losing some R6bn through other forms of corruption.

It was all part of the same problem, he said, and the country had to take a stand against all illicit activities that deliberately robbed the government of revenue.

Not just mining worldwide

Meanwhile Judge Davis agreed with ANC members that “additional revenue was needed to redress historical injustices” but the World Bank had reported that South Africa had addressed this challenge better than most countries, including Brazil. There was no evidence to suggest that transfer pricing affected the mining industry notably.

He was joined by Billy Joubert of Deloittes who stated that such a transaction should not be criminalised because they were cross-border transactions, which was essentially transfer pricing, and re-emphasised that they were “neutral” until  assessed and found to be illicit or not.

National Union of Mineworkers said transfer prices should in principle match either what the seller would charge an independent, arm’s length customer, or what the buyer would pay an independent, arm’s length supplier. He claimed that transfer pricing defeated the objectives of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act.

“All it meant”, said the NUM spokesperson, “was retrenchment of employees; low and unequal salaries: inadequate investment on skills development; poor implementation of social and labour plans and less investment on health and safety standards, resulting in injuries and fatalities.”

brigette radebeBridgette Radebe of South African Mining Development Association (SAMDA) said her records showed that “out of 151 countries, South Africa lost, on average, the twelfth highest amount of money through illicit financial outflows”. She disagreed with Joubert of Deloittes on the ‘neutrality’ of transfer pricing and the effects and that the statement that the mining industry was a “small player” was incorrect.

She said the mining industry contributed 17% of GDP and 38% of exports, plus 19% of private investment with R78 billion spent in wages and salaries. “These figures were totally eroded and made misleading by transfer pricing”, she said.  She provided the parliamentarians with a series of figures explaining how transfer pricing in the mining industry took place and claimed that manipulation was often the practice.

SAMDA suggested the immediate alignment of the mining charter with the B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice with transfer pricing and to address the issue of penalties contained in the charter for non-compliance.  Much agreement from ANC members took place.

Multinationals under attack

One ANC member stated that “the bulk of South Africa’s mineral resources were in the hands of foreign nationals and it was good that SAMDA and organised labour came together and addressed the issue of transfer pricing in terms of the South Africa’s economy.”

A department of mineral resources (DMR) staff member attending was called upon by the chair to respond, who stated that all the issues raised would be discussed by his department and in the light of success with penalties under the Mine and Safety Act, increased penalties for breeches in declarations might be considered.

Cooperation possible

DMR and SARS had been working together, the spokesperson said, on the whole issue of transfer pricing, a memorandum of understanding between the two departments having been established.

SAMDA said that some multinational companies often wished to “manipulate prices to such an extent that there was no income for beneficiation or share distribution and consequently loans on shares could not be repaid.”

Other articles in this category or as background
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/uncategorized/sars-to-be-given-right-to-search-without-warrant/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/securitypolicedefence-2/customs-duty-bill-cuts-inland-ports/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/finance-economic/promotion-and-protection-of-investment-bill-opens-major-row/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za/finance-economic/financial-sector-regulation-bill-heralds-twin-peaks/

Posted in Facebook and Twitter, Finance, economic, LinkedIn, Mining, beneficiation, Special Recent Posts, Trade & Industry0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. MPRDA : Shale gas developers not satisfied
  2. Environmental Bill changes EIAs
  3. Border Mangement Bill grinds through Parliament

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories

  • Anti Corruption Unit overwhelmed

    Focus on top down elements of patronage  ….editorial….As Parliament went into short recess, the Anti-Corruption Unit, the combined team made up of SARS, Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and Justice Department, divulged […]

  • PIC comes under pressure to disclose

    Unlisted investments of PIC queried…. When asked for information on how the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) had invested its funds, Dr  Daniel Matjila, Chief Executive Officer, told parliamentarians that the most […]

  • International Arbitration Bill to replace BITs

    Arbitration Bill gets SA in line with UNCTRAL ….. The tabling of the International Arbitration Bill in Parliament will see ‘normalisation’ on a number of issues regarding arbitration between foreign companies […]

  • Parliament rattled by Sizani departure

    Closed ranks on Sizani resignation….. As South Africa struggles with the backlash of having had three finance ministers rotated in four days and news echoes around the parliamentary precinct that […]

  • Protected Disclosures Bill: employer to be involved

    New Protected Disclosures Bill ups protection…. sent to clients 21 January……The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs will shortly be debating the recently tabled Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which proposes a duty […]