RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open letter to the honourable prime minister

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Open letter to the honourable prime minister

    Open letter to the honourable prime minister expressing concern about discretionary waiver to Executive Motors
    Friday, April 15, 2011



    Dear Prime Minister
    As the entire country and the media focuses on the circus that the Manatt Enquiry has become, I fear that a most serious matter has largely been ignored or swept aside without sufficient debate, analysis and contemplations on its most serious implications.

    I speak of the matter of discretionary waivers which was highlighted by the Gleaner in an article published on Monday March 14, 2011. Even though the writer did not make it the subject of the article it revealed that of just over J$300 million in discretionary waivers granted by the Ministry of Finance, one company, Executive Motors Ltd. (registered company no. 20,719), received the lion share. This company, majority owned by Desmond Panton, received a waiver of $183,739,735.66 for GCT liabilities outstanding from 2000-2004. I must point out that this waiver was granted in December 2010 after you announced to the nation that there would be a freeze on such waivers based on the IMF arrangements I believe.

    The reason given for the waiver being granted as stated on the MOF website is "Financial Constraints in the face of enormous liabilities". The website indicated that of liabilities of $204,155,261.84 due to the Government and People of Jamaica under the applicable Tax Laws, Executive Motors Ltd. was only required to pay a little over $20,000,000. Immediately I sort to refresh my memory on other tax matters that involved Desmond Panton. My research on the Gleaner website led me to a number of articles that detailed Mr. Panton's arrest in August of last year for evasion of customs duties and for collecting revenue on behalf of Government and failing to pay it over. These transgressions were in respect of another company majority owned by Panton, Key Motors Ltd (registered co. #33,652). Several vehicles were seized from his unsuspecting customers during the customs crackdown, led by the hard-working Commissioner Danville Walker, and his place of business on Hagley Park Rd. was shuttered.

    Honourable Prime Minister thousands of small businesses in Jamaica including hoteliers, manufacturers, farmers and service providers have gone out of business and production due to "Financial Constraints in the face of enormous liabilities". Certainly the sale of Mazda vehicles is not an essential service and if the principal is unable to sustain the financial health of his business without being a tax cheat then he should be allowed to sink or swim on his own volition. The Minister of Finance just announced a budget cut of $1 billion for Education. I believe you should ask the Minister if, in his discretion, the financial health of Mr. Panton and his car dealership supersedes the interest of the thousands of poor Jamaican children who stand to lose from inadequate provisions for Education that the $183,739,735.66 could have bolstered. It is my fervent belief that anyone who uses discretion in this manner should not be allowed any.

    A Minister in the previous Government stated that those who play by the rules get shafted. It seems to me that this mantra is even truer now. In the face of rising gas, energy and food costs the PAYE taxpaper cannot opt to keep back some of his or her taxes due to "Financial Constraints dat mek ends caan meet" even though they are the one who have always borne the brunt of Jamaica's tax burden. On the other hand we have kicked it up a notch above the PNP Government in this instance to ensure that he who breaks the rules get rewarded!! Sir, how else can it be explained when a proven tax dodger who was arrested in August and forced to hand over monies he collected on behalf of the Government (duties and GCT on cars) is rewarded in December with a huge waiver on GCT liabilities ,some originating as far back as 2000 according to the Ministry's website?

    Honourable Prime Minister maybe you can ask the determined and undaunted Contractor General Mr. Greg Christie to use his good office to probe how a company with outstanding GCT liabilities dating back to 2000 has been able to tender and win numerous government contracts for the supply of motor vechicles when one of the first requirements for Government tenders is a VALID TAX COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE? I am interested to know is Executive Motors had a valid TCC in its most recent and successful bid to supply vehicles to the National Water Commission ?

    If that requirement was not "waived" then how did they come to be in possession of a valid TCC in light of their long outstanding tax liabilities?
    I must confess that I am a longstanding supporter of your Party but it would be dishonest of me to not use this opportunity to express my disappointment that you have not held your Ministers and their Ministries to a higher level of accountability as promised by you. At the very least this waiver strikes me as irregular, vulgar and immoral. I would not be surprised if used your good of to investigate, Honourable Prime Minister, that you discover something far worst. Over to you sir as there is still time to be decisive and ward of the wolves who seem to have become emboldened by your distraction with the Manatt Affair.

    Yours truly

    Aunty Cor Uption


    Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/busin...#ixzz1KBoJfcv7
    Last edited by Karl; April 21, 2011, 09:37 PM.

  • #2
    A BROWN MAN TIME UNUH NEVA HEAR IT

    a suh di thing fi operate


    brown man time sweet

    keep up the good work

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Skeng D View Post
      A BROWN MAN TIME UNUH NEVA HEAR IT

      a suh di thing fi operate


      brown man time sweet

      keep up the good work
      Indeed
      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

      Comment


      • #4
        The above is what's wrong with Ja. Ever since England took over the island; it's common belief that the govt. should compensate al business interests in Ja ( this came about because it was in Britian's strategic and economic interest to do so at the time.)

        Now we see bawling and wailing when bsiness fail because evryone expects to be bailed out with tax payers' dollars (HARD SWEAT) I was shocked to find out that most hotels were built by tax payers dollars. The sad part is that the majority of Jakans have nothing to show but poverty and crime (guns to kill each other).

        What if these lands were used to build about five universities/colleges all over the island (instead of hotels)? Tourism market will get lean and mean and our local industry will fold because Ja is not accustomed to competing on a global scale (see life and debt), aslo the island is accustomed to preferential treatments in waivers (see EU and agri), handouts of tax payers' money and govt. bailouts. In short a socialist society masquerading as capitalists.

        In time all will become evident.

        Comment


        • #5
          http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/busin...#ixzz1KnmiOyI6

          Comment


          • #6
            Who love bail out more dan American? Wall St in Particular?

            Comment


            • #7
              It must be Global... here in T&T the biggest bailout has been that of CLICO to the tune of billions of US $ and it is creating quite a stink with the policyholders arguing for a full refund of investments + interest, those who put $$ in interest-bearing instruments...long story... but the point is it is in the news daily...

              When "investors" put their money with a CLICO that is promising 13% when the street is offering 6%. their spidey senses should tingle... OLINT for example I had opportunity to invest in but ran in the other direction ( I had no play money) when I saw the ROR offered and a good friend at JMMB had no explanation of how David was doing it... the point is, if you take a risk why should the ordinary taxpayer fund your loss when the investment fails?

              In CLICO's case the govt is refunding the full amount to investors up to $75K TT (about $12.5K US) anything above that you can take it in a 20 year bond (I am not sure if it is the face value of the investment only or with interest) and sell it on the open market if you so desire... de people dem in dat cattygerry a mek plenty noise... we waan we money an wi waant i' now! I believe there are about 10,000 such accounts... let's assume they are distinct individuals; why should 1.29 M people pay them for making a bad choice? As a tax payer I find it is not how the govt should spend my money... suppose OLINT were a legit operation that the govt bailed knowing its assets were way less than its liabilities, but kept it operating in order to maintain jobs and stability... then the investors on top of that now asking govt to pay them their investment plus promised interest... madness!

              The above may not be quite an apples to apples comparison given the nature of the underlying entities but the investors' behaviour stinks of pure greed, notwithstanding vulnerable folk who followed the advice of their agent.
              Peter R

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Peter R View Post
                It must be Global... here in T&T the biggest bailout has been that of CLICO to the tune of billions of US $ and it is creating quite a stink with the policyholders arguing for a full refund of investments + interest, those who put $$ in interest-bearing instruments...long story... but the point is it is in the news daily...

                When "investors" put their money with a CLICO that is promising 13% when the street is offering 6%. their spidey senses should tingle... OLINT for example I had opportunity to invest in but ran in the other direction ( I had no play money) when I saw the ROR offered and a good friend at JMMB had no explanation of how David was doing it... the point is, if you take a risk why should the ordinary taxpayer fund your loss when the investment fails?

                In CLICO's case the govt is refunding the full amount to investors up to $75K TT (about $12.5K US) anything above that you can take it in a 20 year bond (I am not sure if it is the face value of the investment only or with interest) and sell it on the open market if you so desire... de people dem in dat cattygerry a mek plenty noise... we waan we money an wi waant i' now! I believe there are about 10,000 such accounts... let's assume they are distinct individuals; why should 1.29 M people pay them for making a bad choice? As a tax payer I find it is not how the govt should spend my money... suppose OLINT were a legit operation that the govt bailed knowing its assets were way less than its liabilities, but kept it operating in order to maintain jobs and stability... then the investors on top of that now asking govt to pay them their investment plus promised interest... madness!

                The above may not be quite an apples to apples comparison given the nature of the underlying entities but the investors' behaviour stinks of pure greed, notwithstanding vulnerable folk who followed the advice of their agent.

                SAD, especially when many knew the RISKS. Did they ever pay any taxes on the interest received?

                Bet - many of these never pay TAXES in them life.
                Life is a system of half-truths and lies, opportunistic, convenient evasion.”
                - Langston Hughes

                Comment


                • #9
                  Interestingly, the then Minister of Finance, withdrew/cashed in whatever you want to call it.. over $2m TT or over $350K US just mere weeks before the rubber hit the road in CLICO; she claimed it was sheer coincidence...LOL
                  Peter R

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X