Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice September 19, 2018
    The CCPA is pleased to announce the creation of the Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice.This Fellowship is created to honour the legacy of senior researcher Kate McInturff who passed away in July 2018. Kate was a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research and achieved national acclaim for researching, writing, and producing CCPA’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The buck-a-beer challenge Ontario deserves September 6, 2018
    Ricardo Tranjan proposes an alternate plan to Doug Ford's buck-a-beer challenge in the Toronto Star.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Growing number of professionals face job insecurity, study finds September 6, 2018
    The Toronto Star's Sara Mojtehedzadeh discusses the findings of the CCPA Ontario's report, No Safe Harbour and gathers firsthand accounts from precariously employed professionals who live and work in Ontario.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Our Schools/Our Selves: The view from West Virginia September 4, 2018
    Our latests publication, Lesson Here, digs in to the West Viriginia teachers' strike.  Read the firsthand accounts of the work stoppage here.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • What do the two largest mining disasters in Canada's and Brazil's history have in common? August 20, 2018
    Tailings dam spills at Mount Polley and Mariana: Chronicles of disasters foretold  explores the many parallels between the tailings dam spills at the Mount Polley mine in British Columbia, Canada, and the Samarco mine in Mariana, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The Mount Polley disaster took place in August 2014, when the dam holding toxic waste from […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

PotashCorp, US Regulators and Bruce Johnstone

Multinational corporations generally provide more detail to the US Security and Exchange Commission than in their Canadian annual reports. Thank goodness for American disclosure requirements.

Along with its 2010 Annual Report, PotashCorp released its Annual Report on Form 10-K (a Security and Exchange Commission filing) on Friday afternoon. The following section is on pages 14 and 15:

Royalties and Certain Taxes

Saskatchewan potash production is taxed at the provincial level under The Mineral Taxation Act, 1983 (Saskatchewan). This tax consists of a base payment and a profit tax (“Potash Production Tax”). No Potash Production Tax was paid in 2010. As a resource corporation in the Province of Saskatchewan, we are also subject to a resource surcharge that is a percentage of the value of our resource sales (as defined in The Corporation Capital Tax Act of Saskatchewan). In 2010, the total resource surcharge paid was $74.6 million.

In addition to the Potash Production Tax and resource surcharge, royalties, taxes and rental fees are payable to the Provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, municipalities and others by potash producers in respect of potash sales, production or property in the Provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. These royalties, taxes and fees, which are included in cost of goods sold, were $97.9 million in 2010.

For 2010, miscellaneous taxes paid (not included above) totaled $2.2 million. We do not make royalty payments in connection with our phosphate and nitrogen operations.

It is good to see the company confirm in plain English what the numbers in its annual report made clear: “No Potash Production Tax was paid in 2010.”

Saskatchewan’s Potash Production Tax, resource surcharge and miscellaneous taxes are labeled “provincial mining and other taxes,” which totaled $77 million in 2010. In modern parlance, this potash production tax system is generally called “royalties.”

However, the historic Crown Royalties are still payable under Subsurface Mineral Regulations and deductible from the Potash Production Tax. PotashCorp includes these royalties in “cost of goods sold.” The Regina Leader-Post’s financial editor, Bruce Johnstone, noted this accounting quirk yesterday:

. . . the $77-million figure is “disingenuous” and [NDP leader Dwain] Lingenfelter knows it. A closer examination of PotashCorp’s 2010 financial statements indicates the corporation reported $3.4 billion in “cost of goods sold” (which includes base royalties) and $642.8 million in income taxes (which include provincial corporate income taxes).

PotashCorp itself compares the $77-million figure (“provincial mining and other taxes”) with “potash gross margin,” expressing the former as a percentage of the latter in every fourth-quarter report. Those of us who reproduce this comparison are being no more disingenuous than Johnstone’s favourite company.

But he has a point: a more comprehensive measure of “royalties” obviously should include the original Crown Royalties. The problem is that we do not have the numbers.

PotashCorp takes a kitchen-sink approach, mixing together Saskatchewan’s Crown Royalties, all of New Brunswick’s royalties, municipal taxes, etc. for a sum of $98 million. Johnstone unhelpfully multiplies that kitchen sink by 35 in referencing $3.4 billion, a company-wide total that mostly comprises nitrogen and phosphate costs incurred outside the province.

Similarly, he cites $643 million of corporate income tax. As I noted yesterday, only about half of that total is current 2010 Canadian tax payments, as opposed to foreign tax payments and provisions for possible future tax payments. And Saskatchewan gets less than half of the Canadian total.

Johnstone seems satisfied to throw around some big numbers that have little to do with Saskatchewan and conclude that the current system is “working very well.” In fact, the opacity of available data is just one more reason the province needs a thorough royalty review.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: February 27, 2011, 6:00 am

It is indeed pathetic to realize that there is not a lot of clear information on such a huge issue.

It has always been a sad state of a affairs when canadian companies have to diclse more information to an American regulator such as the US S E C than a Canadian body.

If the Saskatchewan public want to safe guard their natural resources, theyat least should have the right to some level of precision with the data. It is a farce tha our sec at the provincial or national level does not require more disclosure.

Got to love the form 10k. It is one step towards economic democracy. I wonder if the general public has an idea on how little we know about corporate activities.

Write a comment





Related articles