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 (â€œPotash Production Taxâ€). 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: â€œNo Potash Production Tax was paid in 2010.â€
Saskatchewanâ€™s Potash Production Tax, resource surcharge and miscellaneous taxes are labeled â€œprovincial mining and other taxes,â€ which totaled $77 million in 2010. In modern parlance, this potash production tax system is generally called â€œroyalties.â€
However, the historic Crown Royalties are still payable under Subsurface Mineral Regulations and deductible from the Potash Production Tax. PotashCorp includes these royalties in â€œcost of goods sold.â€ The Regina Leader-Postâ€™s financial editor, Bruce Johnstone, noted this accounting quirk yesterday:
. . . the $77-million figure is â€œdisingenuousâ€ and [NDP leader Dwain] Lingenfelter knows it. A closer examination of PotashCorpâ€™s 2010 financial statements indicates the corporation reported $3.4 billion in â€œcost of goods soldâ€ (which includes base royalties) and $642.8 million in income taxes (which include provincial corporate income taxes).
PotashCorp itself compares the $77-million figure (â€œprovincial mining and other taxesâ€) with â€œpotash gross margin,â€ 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 Johnstoneâ€™s favourite company.
But he has a point: a more comprehensive measure of â€œroyaltiesâ€ 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 Saskatchewanâ€™s Crown Royalties, all of New Brunswickâ€™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 â€œworking very well.â€ In fact, the opacity of available data is just one more reason the province needs a thorough royalty review.
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.