MinBane

Helt ute av sporet (Okumala ekigwo okulyaku kya okuziga)

Archive for the tag “Government of Norway”

The Presidential Handshake report doesn’t say much, but it was a clear “error” by Museveni!

I finally got the whole COSASE report of the Presidential Handshake, what has been reported on my blog or page, has been comments of it. This time it would be direct quotes from the report that was put forward in Parliament from the Parliamentary Committee. That the President had an “error” was been weak, the whole ordeal was a bribe and the Committee didn’t have the courage to say so. Even as the position of every one was spelled out in the Report. Every single person paid out bribe was spelled out and the whole part of the allocation was broth to the daylight. Not that the insights was saying much new. But it still, shows how the President is controlling the Parliament and the use of funds. Since he was shocked of certain acts and that he was making it bonafide, but it wasn’t so. This story has been written back- and fourth.

Before more comments, let’s look at quotes from the report!

The Committee was informed by the management team of URA led by the Commissioner General that before the final arbitration ruling, the Uganda Government team briefed Cabinet on the 19th of November 2014 on the progress of the HOGL arbitration and H.E. the President promised to reward the team if they won the case” (…) “The Final Award on the merits of the arbitration was delivered on the 24th February, 2015 wherein the full panel of three Arbiters agreed in favour of Uganda Government and dismissed the entire claim of HOGL and awarded USD 4,083,840 in cost. The then Attorney General Hon. Fred Ruhindi on the 13th April 2015 (App. B1) wrote to H.E. the President reminding him of his promise to reward the team and requested him to consider a reward for noble team. He also attached a list of 24 proposed beneficiary” (…) “The Committee was informed that the Attorney General further led the Government team to meet H.E. the President at his country home in Rwakitura on the 17th May 2015 where the victory in the Heritage arbitration case was among other things discussed. That the H.E. The President thanked the team and directed the Commissioner General of URA to propose an appropriate reward for the team. H.E. The President also guided that the other Public Officers who had tremendously Contributed to the success of the case but had not been included on the first list generated by the Attorney General be included too” (COSASE, P: 8-9. 2017).

As a follow up to the H.E. the President’s letter of 16th November, 2015, the Commissioner General of URA wrote to the Permanent Secretary/Secretary to Treasury (PS/TS) in a letter dated 11th December, 2015 (App. B6) requesting him to formally designate her as accounting Officer through whom the reward would be paid and to formally requisition for the UGX 6,000,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Six Billions Only)” (…) “The Commissioner General, as advised and in a letter dated 5th May 2016 (App. B8) sought authority from the Hon. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to reallocate UGX. 6 Billion (Uganda Shillings Six Billion Only) from URA Tax Refund Account to URA Expenditure Account so that the 42 Public Officers could be paid and suggested that a supplementary to URA for that amount to be considered and handled by the Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development did not grant this authority. However, by letter dated 19th October, 2016 (App. B10) he requested the Auditor General to issue an audit warrant for UGX 6 Billion” (COSASE, P: 10-11, 2017).

The Committee reviewed the budget for Financial Year 2016/2017, which was approved by the Board and subsequently appropriated by Parliament for URA activities and the UGX 6 Billion “handshake” was not budget for. The Committee further received evidence from the Board of URA to the effect that such money had not been provided for and they were hearing of that expenditure for the first time” (COSASE, P: 29, 2017).

The Committee observers therefore:

1. That it is true that USD 157 Million, which would have accrued as part of the Capital Gain Tax, was waived.

2. The contention arose out of a clause in the PSA which provided for waiver of tax signed by the then minister Hon. Syda Bbumba.

3. That the dispute would not have arisen if the PSA did not have a waiver of tax.

4. The then Ministry of Energy, Hon. Syda Bbumba, did not have authority to waive tax in that transaction and her auction of not having read the agreement before signing was irregular.

5. All the then Ministry of Energy who signed PSAs with similar clause acted ultra vires the law” (COSASE, P: 44, 2017).

Conclusion:

This “handshake” expenditure was not budgeted URA activity and therefore, a diversion of the UGX 6 Billion without lawful authority was contrary to the PFMA” (…) “H.E. The President’s approval of this “handshake” was bonafide. However, it was an error of judgement” (…) “That all funds paid out of URA account to the beneficiaries of the “handshake” should be refunded” (…) “The Executive should come up with a Bill within 90 days to regulate and streamline the Presidential Donations Budget” (COSASE, P: 45, 2017).

The Presidential Handshake has clearly showed the proof of how a visit at the Presidents farm in 2015 can lead-up to. President Museveni offered honorarium and bonuses to all the staff in the Tullow/Heritage Oil Tax Case, so all their work would benefit them. Without having it in budgets, without any votes or any sort of procedural activity, therefore it was an illegal allocation. That the Uganda Revenue Authority did allocations without proper actions, that the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and Ministry of Energy all actors did wrong in this scenario. They misused the tax to their own benefit and the President allowed it to happen. Therefore, it is weird that the only thing the Committee concludes with a new legislation to stop it. Secondly, also refunds of the benefits for the civil servants and the NRM cronies. That the act was done without lawful authority, but that was well-known and not rocket science. IT was clear misuse of government funds to give someone an extra payday, which wasn’t allocated or had the proper legal stamp. Therefore, a clear bribe… not solicited funds which the state should pay their civil servants. Peace.

Reference:

The Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and the State Enterprises (Cosase) – ‘Report of the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and the State Enterprises (COSASE) on the Investigations into the Circumstances under which the reward of UGX 6 BN was given to 42 Public Officers who participated in the Heritage Oil and Gas Arbitration Case’ (May, 2017)

Advertisements

Sekatawa claims the Presidential Handshake is Patriotic, I beg to differ!

The Ali Sekatawa, the Uganda Revenue Authority lawyer has this recent week addressed in his own way, the report from the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), that delivered the report on the Presidential Handshake to Parliament. This report spelled out the initial idea and talk of refunding the handshake back to URA, as the monies was commissioned correctly. Certainly, the Lawyer want to defend his responsibility and be part of illegal activity. Therefore, his defense is ridiculous, just take a look!

According to Sekatawa, the committee selectively evaluated evidence leading to wrong conclusions on certain aspects and was populist in certain aspects. He says he is angry with the fact that the MPs and sections of the public are challenging the patriotism he and his colleagues exhibited while arguing the tax dispute against two British firms then involved in Uganda’s oil sector. Sekatawa is also challenging the fact that Parliament went ahead to adopt a report, which was not signed by all the members of the committee that investigated the matter. He is also of the view that Parliament has no authority to call on him and others that benefited from the bonanza to refund it because the money wasn’t given by Parliament” (URN, 2017).

I wonder if doing clerical work as your supposed to do in a government organization, that is collecting taxes is so patriotic. In the mind of Lawyer Sekatawa it apparently is. There are certain aspects that I have to dive in to, as he explanation is weak tea. I cannot let this one fly for the sake of foolishness. If there are someone who defends corruption, it should be the corrupt leader President Museveni. Not one of his cronies inside the URA. URA are working and following provisions delivered by Parliament and the President. They follow the guidelines and regulations of taxation that has been given. The same happen as the paperwork on the Presidential Handshake has leaked. It isn’t a secret, it is in the open.

The lawyer is clearly blind by brown-envelopes filled with money, instead of working as a civil servant. The civil servants are working for the state and are paid for their duty. The duty of working inside their offices and get their designated salaries. They are not supposed be bribed or misuse state funds for their own personal gains. That is what happen in the case of the Tullow-Heritage Oil Tax Case that gave monies to all that we’re a part of the court case. The civil servants that served the state and tried to get the ill-gained funds from the companies that was supposed to be part of the consolidation fund. A fund that are used to pay for government and state projects.

Instead, the government and the URA employees we’re served with a Presidential Handshake, that the state didn’t get it designated funds, but the civil servants who worked the case. Which is a bribe and direct looting of state coffers. It isn’t anything other than thieving, a petty theft and it was sanctioned by all the cronies. Not being patriotic trying to build a state, this was state officials and inner-circle of the state giving themselves a massive pay-raise without any procedure or protocol, feeding of a criminal case and foreign investors. Not trying to build a possible foundation or security of the funds, but dole it out to the willing and the ones who knew about the transactions.

The ones that photo-copied the paperwork, the ones that took the phone-calls, the ones that wrote on the settlement, the ones that argued the case in the United Kingdom and the ones that are loved cronies of Museveni. That isn’t patriotic, that is misusing and breaking down a system for personal gains. You don’t love your nation when you sponge of it, when you eat taxes, instead of using it on schools, health-care and other necessities.

Sekatawa doesn’t love Uganda, he loves the Presidential Handshake, he loves the MONEY. MONEY is what makes his world go-around and pays for his SUV and his mansion. He doesn’t love Uganda, he isn’t loving the Republic or the history. He doesn’t respect it’s constitution and it’s laws, when he defends bribes and corrupt behavior. That he benefited from. That is lie… a damn lie. A big fat LIE.

A Presidential Handshake isn’t patriotic, neither are bribes, they are petty theft of state reserves and state funds, that was supposed to go elsewhere, than into the pockets of ill-informed men and woman who liked to corrupted by the state itself. He needs to figure this out and get his mind out the fat corrupted brown-envelopes, maybe even try to figure out the real value of patriotism. Because this is not! Peace.

Reference:

URN – ‘URA lawyer to sue Parliament over Shs 6bn oil cash bonanza’ (24.06.2017) link: http://observer.ug/news/headlines/53523-ura-lawyer-to-sue-parliament-over-shs-6bn-oil-cash-bonanza.html

The Presidential Handshake Probe recommend the NRM regime to regulate the Presidential Donations!

In Uganda everything in Parliament and legislation are usually connected with the President in someway or another. President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni are usually involved in any sort acts and government affairs. It is well known that many decisions are taken directly at the State House or at either the NRM National Executive Committee (NEC) and the NRM Caucus. This are all directed by the President and usually contains his vision. So that the Parliament was probing the Presidential Handshake, that was like looking directly into the provisions given by the President. The President who has accepted to give to civil servants and other government officials. So here is the report from Parliament today!

A House committee that inquired into the payment of Shs 6 billion to 42 government officials for winning a tax oil case in London wants the beneficiaries to refund the monies. Parliament’s Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) committee was instructed by Parliament in January this year to investigate the payment of the monies to the officials, said to have participated in the arbitration case between government and Heritage Oil and Gas in a London court” (…) “In its recommendations, the committee has tasked government to come up with a bill within 90 days to regulate and streamline the Presidential donations budget. Parliament last month rejected a Shs 53.8 billion supplementary budget, which included the Shs 6 billion bonus payment to the government officials. The Budget committee, in its report, said the approval of the funds was deferred pending the COSASE probe conclusion” (Parliament Watch Uganda, 21.06.2017).

Clearly, like all things in Parliament and within government in Uganda are coming back to the Okello House, or President Museveni. He is always involved and has made decisions or took charge so it happen. The same happen with the Presidential Handshake, which he gave way to after seeing the letters in the case. That the beneficiaries are claimed to have to refund their money to the state, as it was supposed to be tax to fund the state. The money the state won was not supposed to become individual income for the individuals doing clerical work for Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) or anyone else.

Now the COSASE wants the state to restrict the Presidential Donations and the monies the President suddenly dole away. So they can monitor his giving ways and his use of state funds. Clearly this will put measures to follow the President and his acts. Certainly, he would not like this, because this could show some transparency and show where the funds the President are free to give-away. This is not something that seem like President Museveni doesn’t want to follow. Since if so, he is showing real governance and open government. He prefers running in backdoor agreements and brown envelopes to get legislation through the Parliament. If the Presidential donations are monitored, than the clear corrupt behavior will be in the open and COSASE would have a field day on the actions of the State House. Certainly, the 90 days will not be met and not be followed.

If so, than it will be water-downed legislation, which doesn’t have the power to question his authority. Just like the monitoring and probing into the Presidential Handshake. The Report today proved how little they can vindicate, and even show who is to blame. As the recommendation for regulation of the Presidential Donations will certainly not be something President Museveni would prefer. Peace.

Presidential Handshake: It’s now revealed that the President is trying to pin someone to “fall on one’s sword”!

The continued exhausting of the Presidential handshake shows the true form of the bribe. Even as the President himself, tries to clean his hands and pin-point more people. He still did sanction it directly from the Uganda Revenue Authority and onto the vast civil servants and loyal cronies, as a bribe and brown envelope of joy. Even if the stories keep coming and more people being implicated, the reality is that this shows that the whole system is rotten.

The maladministration and clearly not caring about state reserves comes to the public court. The Public know knows that the President and his State House, are only trying to find a scapegoat and a perfect victim, to save face and look good, without taking down somebody who knows to much. They know that to many people has gotten ill-earned millions in envelopes because of this Presidential Handshake. That the probe would have questions to the President was most likely, and we could anticipate that someone else would fall on their sword. If they will do it voluntarily and might do it with force from the State House.

Oxford Dictionary states about “Fall on one’s sword”:

Assume responsibility or blame on behalf of other people, especially by resigning from a position.

he heroically fell on his sword, insisting that it was his decision’ (Oxford Dictionary).

So when you read part of the piece in the Daily Monitor today, you see how the President tries to wash his hands of sin and put blame on the Ministers and others. So he will talk to the culprit and make sure that he falls on his sword for him.

Museveni pinning people down for the handshake:

Bugweri County MP Abdu Katuntu,who is leading the inquiry by the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises(Cosase), confirmed at a press briefing on Friday that Mr Museveni wants the Committee to ensure that the missing money is accounted for. “The President said he was not aware [that Shs5b is unaccounted for] and he was happy that we were going to follow it up. He reiterated his commitment to accountability and he said any monies spent from the public coffer should be accounted for. He encouraged us to have this money accounted for by the Justice Ministry Accounting Officer [Solicitor General],”Mr Katuntu said. Mr Katuntu revealed that the Solicitor General will be cross-examined again over the whereabouts of the Shs5b before a report is compiled mapping out his fate. During the ingoing inquiry, Mr Atoke failed to give conclusive accountability for the money. During the course of the two meetings, Mr Museveni also singled out former Energy Minister Syda Bbumba for inserting a clause in the Production Sharing Agreement that allowed Tullow a $157m tax waiver for an out of court settlement involving Tullow. The signing of a PSA to exempt Tullow from $157m was done by Ms Bbumba without the knowledge of the President, Mr Katuntu confirmed. “The President said he was not aware of that exemption. The President agreed with us that the exemption was illegal because the then Minister did not have power to exempt payment of tax. We informed the President that we are following up this matter and we will have a conversation with Syda Bbumba,”Mr Katuntu said” (Arinaitwe, 2017).

Now that Honorable Syda Bbumba is the one to blame now, not the ones applying for it or the ones who gained the ill-willed state coffer monies. Not long ago, it was revealed to come from the wrong account, directly from URA and not State House. Now it is a Minister Bbumba who acted without consistent legal procedure, nor talked with the authorities before the money went on its merry. Certainly the other part of what happen this mid-week reveals certain aspects worth noting!

Asking for favors:

According to our sources, as soon as the president ended his testimony, some MPs took turns to speak privately with him. According to multiple sources familiar with the Entebbe meeting, Katuntu effectively contained the MPs during the committee’s official business session at State House but when that ended, MPs went on rampage. “After the meeting, the president invited us for a group photo and this is when the MPs started [whispering],” said an MP who attended the meeting. This MP singled out Beatrice Anywar (Kitgum Municipality), Hood Katuramu (PWDs Western) and Vincent Woboya (Budadiri East) as some of the MPs that approached Museveni with requests for favours. This was after they saw the committee vice chairperson Anita Among whisper to Museveni. Anywar reportedly invited the president to attend her thanksgiving next month in Kitgum. “She has not been attending the committee meetings. In fact, we didn’t go with her on [Wednesday]. I think her coming on the second day was purposely to see Museveni, not [to be part of] the probe,” one MP said” (Kaaya, 2017).

So the system is rigged and he isn’t only looking for someone to take the blame for the Presidential Handshake, he also sees who are loyal to him if they get favors. Similar to the Handshake. They wants and requests favors from the President, because he has done so in the past. And most likely do it again, that is the way he keeps the cronyism alive and the Movement booming. If he stops paying and delivering brown-envelopes to political affiliates he will lose his base and his MP’s. But because of this Presidential Handshake he has to play smart and look like he cares about fighting corruption, even though his State House is thriving on it.

That this would take such long time isn’t surprising as they are trying to find one who can take the blame, without to much cost and lose of face value to the hierarchy and the State House. Nevertheless, the bribe is still a bribe, even if they try to color it differently, there isn’t a gray-area to put it into. The reality is still the same. That certain elements now this week ask for favors from the President proves the handouts and the handshakes are a systemic and institutionalized affairs at the State House.

The issue with the Presidential Handshake is more of a gimmick as the state tries to find the one who will take the charge and eat, so that the President can say: “See there my Ugandan people, I work against corruption”. But the next day, another MP will pop by Entebbe or Nakasero and ask for favor, an envelope or even a handshake. So that they can be bought into submission, which is the given state and the system that President Museveni believes in. Peace.

Reference:

Arinaitwe, Solomon – ‘Museveni pins SG Atooke over oil cash’ (01.05.2017) link:http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Museveni-pins-SG-Atooke-over-oil-cash/688334-3909560-g9wigk/index.html

Kaaya, Sadab Kitatta – ‘Oil cash probe MPs beg from Museveni’ (01.05.2017) link:http://observer.ug/news/headlines/52653-oil-cash-probe-mps-beg-from-museveni.html

Oxford Dictionary – ‘fall on one’s sword’ link:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fall_on_one’s_sword

Trick or Treat: Presidential Handshake gone wrong!

Today, is a day that doesn’t stop to startle, the day doesn’t stop giving. The reports from the Republic are a bit to much. Still, the continued probe into the 6 billion Ugandan shillings has continued. I would never believe it would amount to anything. For the first time in a while, the President has said he did a mistake, but it wasn’t I did something wrong with the State Resources and the Taxes. No I took the money from the wrong account and then gave it away to the civil servants and movement cronies. Take a look!

Shs. 6 Billion was a mistake and the President want to give a refund!

President Yoweri Museveni has told the Members of Parliament investigating the Shs 6bn Presidential Handshake that he is ready to refund the money” (…) “The president was quoted as saying his original thinking was to “say thank you to our patriotic civil servants who against all odds managed to make us get what was due to us from the known international giants.” The president added that the flouting the rules by the government officials was not his making, although he agreed to take responsibility on their behalf and make sure the money is returned from where it was picked” (…) “It was unanimously agreed during the committee session at State House that picking the presidential handshake money from the Uganda Revenue Authority was a mistake. The money should have been sourced from State House budget that caters for all expenses of the President” (…) “We realized it was wrong for the presidential handshake (Shs 6bn) to come from URA instead of State House or President’s office,” another source who attended the session said” (NTV Newsnight, 26.04.2017).

The Movement and the government leader, the executive and the President are clearly trying to clean his hands. Since it was from the wrong accounts, that the Presidential Handshake was taken from the Uganda Revenue Authority, as they we’re the receiving end of the tax-case with the Heritage and Tullow Oil Corporation. These case and probe the republic have been through and through, even Andrew Mwenda defended the handshake.

What is sad and supposed to be the saving grace for the President, that if he gave the civil servants and the ones involved in it and getting compensated for their work. The handshake was by his purpose just a fair gift for the work. As the ones in URA working copying paper and picking up the phone in the office for the state. So even if they mask the audit of the budget as of where the money came from, the civil servants still get their monies.

If the money we’re directed from the State House or from URA, it is still from the State Coffers, the only difference is the ending numbers on the slips. That it really wasn’t his making, but we have seen the letter that was accepted and the citizens seen the acts. If not they have read the lines and comments of the Handshake.

Even if the President said this should have been expenses directly from him and not from the URA. It is still uncommon and not something that should occur. That the President blames his fellow co-workers and the institutions around him. Presidential Handshake no matter where it comes from is still an act of graft, a bribe or a misuse of government funds. The gift from the President is still brown-envelopes without proper procedure, not basic salaries or natural bonuses. If it was so, then there wouldn’t have been such a probe into the handshake.

An act of corruption if it comes on a unicorn from the State House or from the blessed souls of the Uganda Revenue Authority, doesn’t sanction the act differently. If the letterhead of the bribe to the civil servants for their work, doesn’t salvage the Presidential Handshake. It just shows the disregard President Museveni has. He thinks it would be different it was directly donated from him and if he signs of the same amount to URA from the State House. Surely, that amount must come from the budgeted “confidential” State House funds, as the knowledge of how it is use are only for the President to know.

I can reassure the world that a unicorn was not flying around the Okello House this night and will not happen tomorrow morning either, a bribe is still a bribe. You can try to change the fact, but the money was still transacted without the proper procedure and without the justification. Even if the President says so, it is still misuse of the state coffers and given taxpayers funds to cronies, nothing else! Peace.

Opinion: Forget the Presidential Handshake, the Oil Revenues not been remitted since 2010; so what value have the Norwegian Oil Development Programmes in this mess?

ntv-01-03-2017-oil

“Oil Cash Probe: About 2.4 trillion shillings of oil revenues received since 2010 has not been remitted to Bank of Uganda” (NTV Uganda, 01.03.2017).

President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the National Resistance Movement and all the other civil servants that has been working and living with the knowledge of the unaccounted funds. The 2.4 trillion shillings is above $ 663m dollars. That is massive amount funds that could be used to all sorts of government programs. However, there been programs to secure the revenue and the progress, which is done in collaboration with the Norwegian government. I address these programs and wonder if they only exist on papers to make the ugly truth look decent. Since, the revelation of the funds that gone missing without a trace.

This misdirection points to another explanation for the oil curse that is gaining favour: politics. Because oil money often flows directly from Big Oil to the Big Man, as Africa’s dictators are known, governments have little need to raise revenues through taxes. Arvind Subramanian of the IMF argues that such rulers have no incentive to develop non-oil sources of wealth, and the ruled (but untaxed) consequently have little incentive to hold their rulers accountable” (The Economist, 2005).

Norwegian Funding for transparent Oil development:

Cooperation between Uganda and Norway on capacity and institutional development has a long history through several successful Programmes. Norwegian assistance under Oil for Development in Uganda started in 2006 under the programme “Strengthening the State Administration of the Upstream Petroleum Sector in Uganda”. This programme ended in June 2009 after three and a half years of successful implementation. Total funding for this Programme was NOK 21,294,650” (…) “The Programme had three Pillars – Resource Management, Environment Management and Revenue Management Pillar, in addition to a Programme Management, and was allocated a total funding of 80,000,000 NOK for its five year duration (2009 to 2014). However, during the second and third Annual Meetings for the Programme that were held on 27th January 2011 and 31st January 2012 respectively, the need to expand several activities of the Programme and the addition of new ones due to the rapid growth of the oil and gas sector in the country, was presented and approved by the Embassy. Additional funding of 67,000,000 NOK was allocated during September 2013 and the addenda to the Programme Agreement and Institutional Corporation Contract were signed” (MoEMD, P: 7-8, 2015).

Oil Press Statement 01.03. P1Oil Press Statement 01.03. P2

Supposed Revenue Administration:

The Program supported the development of a system (the petroleum tax manual) which will be used to identify and harmonize activities in the petroleum sector for taxation purposes. This activity is in three (3) parts and has been supported by the Oil Taxation Office (OTO) in Norway. Consultative meetings were held and Part II of the manual was completed in April 2014. Parts I and III have been reviewed and will be completed in next phase of the program with support from OTO” (MoEMD, P: 16, 2015).

That means that the Ugandan Government gotten by the Norwegian Government the amount of 168,294,650 NOK, which if you convert it is the total 71,879,499,032.99 UGX or 71bn shillings. If you translate it into dollars it is above $18 million dollars. That is massive sum of donations for some common good. Therefore, it is insulting that the Oil Cash Probe is showing massive amount shillings are unattained or even can verify where the oil money is.

Therefore, that the Norwegian state continues to fund the Ugandan government with the new agreement of continued oil development on the 15th May 2015. That was in a signed agreement between Hon. Matia Kasaija of Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and the Norwegian ambassador Thorbjørn Gaustadsæther. This was an continued effort to as the agreement stated: “The Impact of this programme will thus contribute to achieving the goal of the Uganda National Oil and Gas Policy (2008): “To use the country’s oil resources to contribute to early achievement of poverty eradication and create lasting value to society”. “The Program that the states agreed upon for the years from 2015 was 19 million NOK, in 2016 was 18 million NOK and in 2017 supposed to be 16 million NOK. In total the Norwegian Support for these three years are 53 million NOK” (Agreement between the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Republic of Uganda regarding development cooperation concerning “Strengthening the Management of the Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda – Phase II, 15th May 2015).

The Norwegian government have supported the Ugandan government over two periods with funds to secure the Oil Development for human resource, drilling technic and revenue stream. Therefore with the recent revelations shows that the works of the cooperation have been very fruitless or pointless; then even as the programs are in the works, you see the massive amount of petrodollars disappearing in thin-air. This is just to establish the amount of funds together before 2015 and after, that being the amounts of 221,294,650 NOK or 94,516,067,983.63 or 94bn Uganda Shillings. That is insulting lots of monies when the knowledge of missing 2 trillion shillings!

I start to wonder what they really did on this one and how they duped their European counterparts, as the results of the bidding is that funds dating back to 2010 is unaccounted for and not allocated in the funds their supposed to be at Bank of Uganda. This is a dozens loads of handshakes and giant robbery of the reserves.

presidential-handshake-2015

So now I am not so concerned with the “Presidential Handshake” worth 6bn shillings, which is bad enough that the NRM regime has been doling away to all civil servants and other loyal subjects after the “historic” tax settlement that we’re won in the courts. So 6 billion shillings turns into 2.4 trillion shillings, which is vast fortunes misspent by regime that clearly doesn’t care for accountability or transparency. The oil-deal between the government and the licenced in the Lake Albertine Basin!

Other than the little knowledge that was dropped in the 2014 report made by the NGO Global Witness that stated this: “Consequently it is not currently possible to track payments by international oil companies into government accounts with Tullow Oil being the only company voluntarily publishing disaggregated payments to the Ugandan Government. This creates the risk that any theoretical tax avoidance by companies or embezzlement by government officials may go unnoticed (Global Witness makes no claim of any such wrongdoing in relation to the contracts we have examined in this report). This will be increasingly important as oil production begins and more and bigger payments begin to flow into government accounts” (Global Witness, P: 35, 2014).

So this report alone states the fact that world and citizens of Uganda cannot know where the revenue ends. The state supposed petroleum revenue is not visible since 2010. The Ugandans people should be terrified and be mad of the obvious thieving. When the licenced public resources get squandered away and the black gold gets tricked away. So that President Museveni have within his powers and with his cronies made sure the fortunes made on licencing oil in the Lake Albertine basin goes to his or other associates accounts, instead of into government accounts in the Bank of Uganda.

2. Trillion shillings are not a chicken or a small fee easily to lose, it is not something that get earned over a hot minute. The citizens are kept in dark with the funds earned and taken away over years into secret accounts through sophisticated financial instruments. Certainly, Museveni and his bands of brothers who squeezed the government for decades and this is the final nail of salvaging any good reputation. The rep of the Museveni is already barely legal; still this here is just insane that the little 6 billion “handshake” to a bunch of civil servants and NRM elites revealed the madness.

So there was one guy in court who actually had the courage to reveal the greatest crime in decades. Even as the rigging of elections is thieving the country of their representation and of their true leaders, the government isn’t represented by legitimate people, but the ones there is now thieving the whole oil fund. This is not okay, this is thieving the future and the present development, as the Museveni regime and the NRM does not care about their citizens when so much revenue of the petroleum went missing. Peace.

Reference:

The Economist – ‘The curse of oil – The paradox of plenty’ (20.12.2005) link: http://www.economist.com/node/5323394

Global Witness: ‘A Good Deal Better? Uganda’s Secret Oil Contracts Explained’ (2014)

Republic of Uganda – Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development – ‘Strengthening the Management of the Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda –  Phase II – 2015-2018 –  A Development Programme in Co-operation with Norway’ (March 2015)

A look into the EEA Grants and the Norwegian Grants to the EU Member states; efficiency of bureaucratic procedures is needed!

EAA Norway Grants 2016

This here is the outtakes of a report that we’re released now recently showing the wished aspects of the EEA Grants who are most donations from the Norwegian state. The Norwegian State has had through the EEA and EFTA had a company called COWI too look through the donor-funding and the interviewing of the ones getting the allocated funds.

With this in mind are surely other who have been commenting on the matter as the Report dropped in June 2016, I just got it today. So is it right? This is my take on it and here are the quotes that are significant to me and the process and overlook of the use of funds.

How much money at stake:

“The allocation of funds is channelled through 150 programmes within 32 programme areas in 16 beneficiary countries. For the period 2009-14, approximately 1.8 billion EUR were set aside under the grants. During the same period, the Norway Grants supported 61 programmes in the 13 EU Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 20133 respectively, and the EEA Grants supported 86 programmes in those countries as well as in Greece, Spain and Portugal. The allocation of funds to the countries is based on population size and GDP per capita” (EFTA, P:17, 2016).

The Aim:

“The aim of the mid-term evaluation is to assess to what extent and in which way the EEA/Norway Grants contribute to strengthening bilateral relations between donor and beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:18, 2016).

The Norwegian OAG report in 2013:

“The OAG found that bilateral efforts were not sufficiently planned and communicated at the starting phase of the 2009-14 funding period and that e.g. the key guidance documents were finalised too late” (…) “The audit expects that bilateral relations in the 2009-14 funding period will be better safeguarded than during the previous period given the fact that the current 23 Norwegian DPPs have entered into donor programme partnerships with programme operators in the beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:34-35, 2016).

Joint Research Projects:

“Possibly due to the fact that in the research field, international funding is available for joint research projects from for example the large EU programmes Horizon, etc. This kind of funding is not available to other sectors. The benefits in terms of developing international and EU networks and learning about international initiatives in research are very clear. The EEA and Norway Grants support these processes by being an important contributor and often facilitating a first international cooperation for both parties. However, the evaluation also shows that such networks and cooperation cannot always continue after the expiration of the external funding” (EFTA, P:49, 2016).

Implementation of Norway Grants:  

“A number of countries have decided to use the same system for implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants as they use for the EU structural funds. Programme and project stakeholders find that the structural funds system is too bureaucratic and that the financial rules are too cumbersome. The national system for implementation of structural funds and related procedures may not be very relevant to a partner/bilateral relation focused programme, especially when this programme includes a donor project partner, who has a hard time complying with the checks and balances of EU Member State structural fund programmes. Programmes in the Research and Scholarship sector regret the decision not to use ERASMUS+ procedures” (EFTA, P:56, 2016).

Allocation to the projects:

“99.3% of the total funds have been allocated to the five focus countries, and 42.9% of total programme funds have been incurred to date. The share of incurred funds varies across the five countries from 35.6% in Romania to 56.4% in Estonia” (EFTA, P: 63, 2016).

Pro Momunta Slovakia

One Slovakian project – Project title: Pro Monumenta:

” The project entitled Pro Monumenta is a cooperation between Pamiatkový úrad SR (The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic), who is the project controller and Riksantikvaren (The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage under the Ministry of Environment). The two institutions first established contact back in 2010 based on a Slovak initiative financed by the Ministry of Culture” (…) “The project was implemented from 1 January 2014 and was scheduled to terminate on 30 March 2016. The main goal of Pro Monumenta in Slovakia is to establish and equip three mobile teams with the capacity to identify and repair easy-to-mend defects at historic monuments, which have led or may lead to deterioration (including basic roof repairs, repairs to chimneys, rainwater drains, fixing of lightning conductors). Major damage identified in the project is documented in a monument technical report, which is stored electronically in a common database” (…) “In this case, the Norwegian partner mainly learns from Slovak experiences and approaches to the implementation of such activities. However, the Norwegian partner also supports the project through its human and technical expertise, such as through an expert from Nasjonele Fervardung, who is expected to arrive to Slovakia to conduct workshops for team members on monument conservation and repairs within a given area” (…) “The project is a clear example of the great contextual and bilateral potential of the programme, if properly implemented. According to the assessment by the project coordinators the project impacts are visible both in Slovakia and Norway (establishment of the formal programmes in the project area) and as Mr. Reznik summarized: “The project significantly improved bilateral co-operation between Norwegian and Slovak experts in the area – especially because it focused on an area of the common interest” (EFTA, P: 67, 2016).

How it is in Latvia and Estonia:

“One explanation for this may be found in Latvia, where some stakeholders indicated that since the bilateral objective is included in the MoU, cooperation is therefore embedded at programme level in most programmes. Since most programmes, particularly in Latvia and Estonia, also have a DPP, the programmes automatically focus on the bilateral relations. This may indicate a tendency for the bilateral aspect to become somewhat formalistic, along the lines of ‘we have a DPP therefore our programme adheres to the bilateral objective’, rather than it being a matter of content and mutual results” (…) “In Estonia, for instance, one indicator has been used in half of the programmes, namely the mandatory indicator “Number of project partnership agreements in the beneficiary public sector”. In more than 30% of the Estonian programmes, no indicator has been used, including the two other mandatory indicators “Number of project partnership agreements in beneficiary civil society” and “…in the beneficiary private sector”. These two indicators have both been used in only 10% of the programmes in 2016. Most programmes are required to make use of at least one of the three obligatory indicators, yet if adding together the top three lines of Table 5-6 for each country, it can be seen that some shares do not sum to 100%. This may be explained by the fact that there are programmes that do not require partnerships, and in some programmes it has not been possible to find relevant partners” (EFTA, P: 69-70, 2016).

Overall Conclusion:

“The overall conclusion on the efficiency of EEA and Norway Grants is that a number of dedicated tools to develop bilateral relations at programme and project level have been introduced. Most of these tools directly support the work of the programmes and projects towards developing bilateral partnership relations, shared results, knowledge and understanding and wider effects. DPPs, bilateral funds and donor project partners all support this goal. The main issue for DPPs and donor project partners is securing the availability of a sufficient number of partners to meet the demand. The main hindering factor identified across the programmes and projects is the administrative procedures (complicated, slow and time consuming) in the beneficiary countries and the fact that the systems used by the beneficiary states are very different systems. Another significant factor identified is the time frame of projects, which due to a late start-up of programmes, can have a very short implementation period” (EFTA, P: 117, 2016).

Clarify the reporting of the projects:

“It is recommended that more instruction be given on the expected contents of reporting on the bilateral objective to avoid the current wide variations in reporting practice and style and the non-informative focus on bilateral activities. It is also recommended that the programme reports include the bilateral indicators selected for the programme. It is suggested that the example of one of the focus countries (Estonia) is adopted. In Estonia, the bilateral indicators are annexed to the report, complete with a justification/explanation of why they were chosen” (EFTA, P: 121, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects:

“It is recommended that focus be directed towards the predefined projects under the bilateral national funds. As mentioned above, the predefined projects provide an interesting opportunity for strategic level cooperation. It is unclear whether the callsat national level for smaller cooperation projects provide added value. Therefore, it is recommended that such calls be differentiated, either in terms of topic or timing, from the bilateral funds at programme level in order to for them to serve a real function (demand/meet a need)” (EFTA P: 121-122, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects II:

It is also recommended to standardise implementation systems and rules so that every programme does not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (and spend a lot of time doing this). Especially DPPs working on the same programme type in several beneficiary countries could benefit from similar/aligned rules of implementation” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects III:

Particularly, data relevant to monitoring and assessment of the bilateral objective (results) are difficult to extract from some of the reports. Hence, the evaluator recommends that reporting requirements be standardised and clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders (i.e. what content is required under which headings)” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).

eea-grants-outreach-event-presentations-7-638

This here proves that actually the monies that going to the Projects are well-used, but those estimates are issued and checked in the same ways, not specifically different between the Educational or other more industrial collaboration between the Donor-Nations and the representatives.

The COWI report are clear on the levels of ability to use the funds, but have questions of finding clear partners for the projects as the allocation of funds is not an issue. That is mostly put on the spot and paid to the partner program either by the direct from Norwegian grants or by the EEA grants that are fuelled by most of the Norwegian donations. Therefore the monies to the nations and projects are arriving.

The indication of the efficiencies and the learning of the projects are different from what type of Norwegian organization is behind the collaborate effort, as much as the donor nation and the projects are proof of the development and goals of the projects that are funded this way. So they are properly examined and not like with this report they are settled with the same systems and with no consideration of the extent or the actual field they we’re prospecting. So the numbers and the proof of results are questionable. Even if the funds are used and the certain results are visible in certain cultural and historical aspects; we can still question the validity of the results be one-fits all like socks when we talking learning-projects, refurbishing old artefacts and even bilateral corporation one set subject.

The indication of that each separate project under the funding have been using lot of time to find ways of implementing the collaborative effort and finding Norwegian partners for the projects funding through the grants; also how they are supposed to work to fulfil the degrees of plans that have to be there to be able to get funding through the EEA and Norwegian Grants. Also the question under how the outsider COWI struggled with understanding and getting the capacity to see the value of some of the results in some reports from the projects as they we’re all written in different ways and different lengths. Show’s the capacity of streamlining the production of reports and the evaluation of the funding through the bilateral projects as the methods of explaining is and can be hard get the data that is needed to tell the story of the projects. Therefore the methods of reporting need to change and maybe even be in one standard, so the EEA, the bilateral partners and the donors can show their success and value for money. Something that the citizens for both the organizations getting the funds and also the donors who needs to prove that the money is not wasted abroad… something that is key reason for the report to show the progress of the grants in the first place. Peace.

Reference:

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) – ‘Mid-term evaluation of the support to strengthened bilateral relations under the EEA and Norway Grants FINAL REPORT’ (June 2016) link: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/17c16170595b473ab59c7edc5c0208a7/2016-evaluering-bilaterale-relasjoner.pdf

Troika statement on continued delay in South Sudan peace process (24.04.2016)

Machar Kiir

UK, US and Norway demand Riek Machar returns to Juba and transitional government is formed.

LONDON, United Kingdom, April 22, 2016 – The members of the Troika (United States, United Kingdom, and Norway) are deeply disappointed by Riek Machar’s continued failure to return to South Sudan’s capital Juba to form the Transitional Government of National Unity. This represents a wilful decision by him not to abide by his commitments to implement the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan.

We congratulate the government for demonstrating maximum flexibility for the sake of peace by agreeing to the compromise proposal on the return of security forces proposed by regional and international partners and mediated by the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission. It remains important that the government fully withdraws its troops from Juba as called for in the peace agreement. We also welcome the opposition’s support for the compromise proposal and demand that Machar abide by this commitment and return to Juba by 23 April.

Machar’s failure to go to Juba, despite efforts from the international community to support his return, places the people of South Sudan at risk of further conflict and suffering and undermines the peace agreement’s reform pillars – demilitarizing South Sudan, injecting transparency of public finances, and pursuing justice and reconciliation – that offer South Sudan a chance for renewal.

We will pursue appropriate measures against anyone who further frustrates implementation of the peace agreement.

DNB Nor plan of setting up a Carlson Funds as a “Societe Anonyme” (S.A.) to initially save taxes and write of their subsidiary in Luxemburg; they might claim differently to save face, but the agreement with Luxemburg Authorities says otherwise!

Biathlon Ad Vital DNB

The Company in Scandinavia famous for getting George Clooney to be parts of their commercials and being synonymous with the Norwegian National Team of biathlon, making Ole Einar Bjørndalen wearing a Vital hat to the races and competition as a display of one of the main sponsors of the National Team. That is ordinary in sports, and is ordinary in the time we live in. So that a big bank is supporting a National Team is everyday event, but that is not what I will write about and discuss. As I got to read one of the papers in the Panama Papers leak. Here it is and hope you can see how DNB Nor ASA used the opportunities for meager taxation and higher earning for their subsidiary.

Before you continue her is a classy ad from the company:

Now we will see how the Norwegian Company can also be a little greedy and trying to avoid taxes in Norway, but still earning the profits and having accounts, but using the PriceWaterCoopers (PWC) offer for a Shell Company in Luxemburg to save taxes and still keep the funds in safety in Luxemburg. That is the grand DNB Nor who is the largest bank group in Norway.

Here is how they do it, and it is epic ways of using the shell-companies to avoid Norwegian tax regime and use a Corporate Fund that is a S.A. “Societe Anonyme” as financial company in Luxemburg to simply benefit from the specific tax status for a company in Luxemburg instead of the Norwegian one. Let me take you for a ride!

What is the Carlson Fund Management Company S.A.:

“Carlson is a Luxembourg resident company incorporated on August 14, 1990 as a limited company (“Societe Anonyme”) in order to develop the German and other European markets” (…) “Carlson is a company of DnB Nor group (hereafter the “Group”). The Group is Norway’s largest financial services group with total combined assets of NOK 1,834 billion. It includes strong brands such as DnB NOR, Vital, Nordlandsbanken, Cresco, Postbank.en, DnB NORD and Carlson” (…)”Carlson is part of the life and asset management branch of activities of the Group, DnB NOR Asset Management. It is Norway’s largest fund manager and has a leading position within discretionary asset management for institutional clients in Norway and Sweden” (…)”Until July 28, 2006, the purpose of Carlson was the creation, management and administration of a unique fund, Carlson Fund, created in Luxembourg on August 31, 1990. In this respect, based on the Luxembourg law on UCis, Carlson benefited from a specific tax status exempting the company from Luxembourg corporate income tax, municipal business tax and net wealth tax”.

You think that is saga in the making just see what more they did to secure lesser tax in Norway and close to none in Luxemburg, because corporate greed is what makes the world run like Ussain Bolt!

“By resolution of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) held on July 28, 2006, Carlson has amended its by-laws in order to comply with the law of December 20, 2002 transposing the UCITS III Directive 85/611/EEC into Luxembourg law. Since the EGM, Carlson has been responsible for the management and administration of several investment funds. Carlson currently manages a portfolio of funds under 3 fund umbrellas: Carlson Fund, DnB NOR Fund and more recently DnB NOR Part II Fund since February l, 2008 (hereafter the “Funds”)” (…) “As from the date of the EGM (i.e. July 28, 2006), Carlson became subject to an unlimited tax liability and is considered as a newly incorporated entity for tax purposes”.

DNB Bankkort

You think that is bad and telling how the Carlson entity of Luxemburg, which funds and fueling money from the DNB Nor and their subsidies and banks in Norway. As he Tax is high here for any profitable business, this kind of transaction and order clears lots of funds from the Company and banks, which gives higher profits, because of less tax as they follows through consultation to follow the exemptions laws in the tax-haven. Here we go!

How do they secure the tax-exemption with the laws in Luxemburg?  

“Based on article 35 (4) of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law (“LITL”), when a company becomes taxable, all its assets and liabilities have to be valuated, at the time of the conversion, at their fair market value The assets and liabilities concerned are those “contributed” to the fully taxable entity, including intangible assets (article 59 (2) LITL)” (…)”the tax balance sheet has to take into account all the assets and liabilities of Carlson (i.e. the whole assets and liabilities whose, by nature, intend to serve the activity of the company2) including the valuation of the management contract. The administrative doctrine precises that is assimilated as an asset all the potential assets that can be exploited in the context of the activity of the company and with an individual economic value” (…)”Carlson has to revalue its capital in its opening tax balance sheet. The revalued capital includes the share capital of the formerly tax exempt company, the reserves accumulated by Carlson until the moment of the conversion, as well as the revaluation reserves resulting from the step-up at the moment of the conversion. The revalued capital is treated as “fiscal capital” in the hands of Carlson from a tax point of view. Any repayment (of part) of this “capital” to Carlson’s shareholders will therefore not be subject to withholding tax in line with the provisions of article 97 (3) b LITL”.

Now we have seen how the DNB Nord have put a S.A. Society Anonyme with the Carlson Funds to drop money into the Tax-Haven of Luxemburg as the DNB thinks the suits of Luxemburg to perfection and wondered if Barney Stinson bought suits made for Luxemburg.

DNB set up the Society Anonyme is set up with a new “EMG” to get unlimited tax-liability in Luxemburg. So the advice made the funds from the company under the Carlson from the time of the board-meeting by law of the 28. July 2006. The continued thing they did was to take their assets and monies fueled into the Carlson Funds, so the liabilities together with all of contracted value and management in the tax-balance sheet. So there fueling of moneys into the Fund is also fiscal capital and because of the status of the S.A. hide more in the secret company there.

DNB Nor

Then the control of Carlson Funds is by all means controlled by DNB Nord as written here:

“As an example, a major part of the support activities (e.g. accounting) is done in close collaboration with the members of the Group located in Sweden/Norway. Moreover, the members of the team managing Carlson in Luxembourg are all senior officers originated from the Group. Consequently, the distribution of the Funds in Luxembourg is mainly performed thanks to the support of the Group”.

Here is what the group is supposed to pay in tax:

“Taking into account the total 2006 and 2007 value of the business compared to the total 2006 and 2007 annual profit before tax, Carlson will pay an annual and arm’s length remuneration in accordance with articles 56 and 164 (3) LITL to the Group for its support representing 65,92% of its annual profit before tax” (…) “Carlson will benefit from such retrocession of fees over a period of 10 years. As the taxable activity of the Company started in 2006, we propose to recognize such retrocession as from August I, 2006 until the financial year 2016” (…)”The computation of the percentage of notional retrocession of fees will be subject to a supervision period of 4 years (2006-2010). In case of significant/major changes in the business in Luxembourg, Carlson commits itself to inform the Luxembourg tax authorities of any significant changes that would modify its business and/or its tax position in order to agree on the more appropriate tax treatment”.

If you wonder what retrocession means that is planned underwritings of the earnings of the company. Underwritings or retrocession is usually a volunteer act of a company to return property or ceding property, though usually by request and not by forced transaction. Also the underwriting is also done to diversifying assets by consolidating them amongst the stakeholders. That means the last one the percentage of the company which is 65 % of the profits of DNB NORD’s Carlson Funds will dived 65% of the funds to the stakeholders of the company. Initially meaning that the Stakeholders or the Owners  of the DNB NORD and that before any tax in Luxemburg, which is beautiful business model for the Stakeholders and for the ones owning DNB, and by literal controlling Carlos Funds.

The Company found another way to dodge a little more tax:

Net Wealth Tax: As no intangible asset is recognized in the tax balance sheet of the Company, there is no increase of the unitary value of Carlson for net wealth tax purposes”.

This is initially saying that since they have not written any assets of value when they started to operate, therefore they does not have assets or monies worth to be classified for the Wealth Tax Purposes in Luxemburg. Here was yet another way of using the loopholes in Luxemburg to get even less taxation and a favorable way of using the tax-system there.

This article in the middle of the charter of Carlson Funds says the truth of the company:

The purpose of the corporation is the creation, administration and management of one or several Luxembourg and/or foreign collective investment funds in transferable securities authorized according to the Directive 85/611/EEC, as amended (”UCITS”) and of other Luxembourg and foreign collective investment funds not covered by trus Directive (“UCI”) (all together the “Funds”) on behalf of their unitholders or shareholders in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of the Luxembow-g law of December 20, 2002 on undertakings for collective investment, as it may be amended from time to time (the “2002 Law”) , and the issue of certificates or statements of confirmation evidencing undivided co-ownership interests in such Funds. The corporation shall manage any activities connected with the management, administration and promotion of the Funds. It may on behalf of the Funds, enter into any contracts, proceed to any registrations and transfers in its nam~ or jn third parties’ names in the register of shares or debentures of any Luxembourg or foreign companies, and exercise on behalf of the Funds and the holders of certificates of the Funds, all rights and privileges, especially all voting rights attached to the securities constituting assets of the Funds. The foregoing powers shall not be considered as exhaustive, but only as declaratory”.

EuroOK

This here says enough of the practices of the Norwegian Banking group of DNB Nor or DNB Nord ASA had a subsidiary for recess their tax-operation and use the lucrative opportunities for keeping the profit without having issues with the Tax-regime in Norway. As the Norwegian rules and tax-regulation without studying them is stricter and has to be stricter than this. Because the end of the Tax contract with Luxemburg disclose the information where they are planning not to pay for their “Net Wealth Tax Due”. So even if the funds grow massively and the monies invested in the Carlson Funds, the opportunity to underwrite 65 % before the tax on its profit and that is possible with the “underwriting” method. In that sense the taxation of the will always is 10% on very little part of the funds, as the stakeholders can theatrically take 65 Euros on the 100 euros. Leave behind 35 Euros of it profit and pay 3, 5 Euro on the 100 Euros of Profit, that is a beautiful operations. If it wasn’t for the underwriting of the revenue then the company would have by the standard tax of Luxemburg paid 10 Euros of tax. 10 Euros is not much of a profit of 100 Euros, but still vastly more than 3, 5 Euros, the difference by quick calculation is 6, 5 euros. That is nearly a price of a Big-Mac Combo-menu that cost around 8 Euros in Luxemburg.

That is because of the technic of underwriting and sharing that with the shareholders and stakeholders of the Carlos Funds S.A. in Luxemburg which is their subsidiary. As written so nicely to the Luxemburg Department of Tax Collection in 2nd July 2008:

“on behalf of our client Carlson Fund Management Company S.A. (hereafter also referred to as “Carlson”), we respectfully request you to confirm, in writing, the content of this letter as to the Luxembourg tax treatment applicable to the situation described herein”.

That the Carlson was supposed to get the reasonable Tax Treatment for the company so there was a hashed plan from the get-go together with the Company of PriceWaterCooper. The plan was made an acted upon. This would not been possible if the DNB Nor did not use the guidance and setting up the charter after the laws there and follow the guidelines of the company setting it up for making sure of having less tax.

As explained with the 100 Euros scenario. The certainty is not any excuse from the DNB Nor can tell away.  As they explained in 2016 to the Norwegian Press:

“No, DNB Luxemburg does not help the costumers to avoid tax. The Advisors function as discussion and talking-partners when it comes to financial questions, which offers legal and legitimate tax-plan for the costumers who live abroad. It could for example be about advice about financial-solution, cross-border transactions, complicated inheritance-regulation and other taxing environment that would be different from the ones who are living in Norway” (…)”DNB does not operate in Luxemburg because of taxation (Foss, 2016).

Well, I have already explained there operation and how they get to pay as little tax as possible through their operation. So DNB Nor had or still have the Carlson Fund Management Company S.A. in Luxemburg to save taxes and earn more monies in their operation and company there. Something they would be able to do in Norway or under Norwegian taxing regulation. Peace.

Reference:

MF I/ECCi/ AEGN/C21108001 M-PEWR – “Carlson Fund Management Company S.A. – Identification tax number: 2006 2240 378- Recognition of a license fee for tax purposes” (02.07.2008) – PriceWaterCooper (PWC)

Foss, Andres Bakke – ‘DNB i redegjørelse i 2014: DNB Luxembourg hjelper ikke kundene med å unndra skatt’ (08.04.2016) link: http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/DNB-i-redegjorelse-i-2014-DNB-Luxembourg-hjelper-ikke-kundene-med-a-unndra-skatt-8422413.html#xtor=RSS-3

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: