Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Boom, Bust and Consolidation November 9, 2018
    The five largest bitumen-extractive corporations in Canada control 79.3 per cent of Canada’s productive capacity of bitumen. The Big Five—Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Husky Energy—collectively control 90 per cent of existing bitumen upgrading capacity and are positioned to dominate Canada’s future oil sands development. In a sense they […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • A new Director for CCPA's BC Office: Message from Mary Childs, Board Chair October 24, 2018
    The CCPA-BC Board of Directors is delighted to share the news that Shannon Daub will be the next BC Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Last spring, Seth Klein announced that, after 22 years, he would be stepping down as founding Director of the CCPA-BC at the end of 2018. The CCPA-BC’s board […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Who Owns Canada’s Fossil-Fuel Sector? October 15, 2018
    The major investors in Canada’s fossil-fuel sector have high stakes in maintaining business as usual rather than addressing the industry’s serious climate issues, says a new Corporate Mapping Project study.  And as alarms ring over our continued dependence on natural gas, coal and oil, these investors have both an interest in the continued growth of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Pharmacare consensus principles released today September 24, 2018
    A diverse coalition representing health care providers, non-profit organizations, workers, seniors, patients and academics has come together to issue a statement of consensus principles for the establishment of National Pharmacare in Canada. Our coalition believes that National Pharmacare should be a seamless extension of the existing universal health care system in Canada, which covers medically […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 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
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