Zambia's Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs)

A Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) is a contract/ treaty signed by two countries (contracting states) to avoid or minimise territorial double taxation of the same income by the two countries. 

Each country has it's own laws and sometimes a person may be a resident of one and earns in come in another. Without agreements, the person maybe subjected to double tax on the same income in the country he is a resident, and the country he earned that income. This is basically the double taxation that is aimed at being reduced in an agreement. This is because without this agreement, a person will be demotivated to earn income if he will be taxed twice on the same income. So why would he earn the earn in another country when that country will tax him and the country he is a resident in, will also tax him? It will be a double lose for him as he may just be working to pay taxes in two countries.

To avoid this double taxation, country agreement on how they will reduce the taxes applied and make the person benefit and be motivated to invest or work to earn income. However, like most relief that is given, people take advantage of this and aim at eliminating or reducing their share of taxation to such levels that some countries, mostly developing countries, will end up without ever taxing the income that the person earns. This is the main reason why tax avoidance has been prominent recently. Sadly, the developed countries took advantage of this and enabled their citizens (companies included) to benefit from such and has resulted in massive illicit flows of resources from developing countries. If there was a fair share, no problems would exist.

Fortunately, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, the same methods that were being used have now hit the developed world so much that what was a problem for developing countries, is not a "world problem". Almost all developed countries have found themselves in the same mess they tolerated. This is what has led to massive fights to end tax avoidance. We now have developed countries chasing companies and tax avoidance cases being so prominent when it has existed for developing countries for a long time. Some of the headlines in this topic are:  Bank BNP Paribas loses £35m UK tax avoidance case, Ladbrokes loses £71m tax avoidance case, HMRC wins 22 out of 26 tax avoidance cases in 2016-17, David Beckham and other celebrities lose £700m tax case, etc.

A serious search on this topic will show how wide-spread this financial problem is. Until the world is ready to agree on a fair share for the tax payer, we may have the problem increasing beyond control. Many NGOs have since been formed to try and help developing get a fair deal from the world economics. That clearly shows the problems being faced. 

Zambia has also been hit hard. We have companies that are always in lost making and not able to pay tax. How that is possible for a company to continue operating when you are always making loses shocks the brains in me. But this exists to an extent that I think the company will never pay tax unless we have someone put his foot down and deals with this situation. The day we will have this country getting tough on such issues, a lot of things will change. Until then, the handling of tax problems with kid gloves will continuously encourage this problem. Ever wonder why China kills tax offenders and has a great tax compliance rate? The way you handle tax issues, determines how your tax compliance will be. If you offer tax incentives to some businesses, expect the others not to pay as well. Everyone should be treated the same for tax purposes. Why would some people face no taxes merely for representing the people and you expect the people to pay taxes? These are issues that should be addressed for mother Zambia for you to expect changes in the way things are handled. 

For those interested in looking at Zambia's DTAs, the revenue authority has a list of treaties that Zambia signed and are in force. They also have a list of tax rates that are applicable in some of these treaties. This is shared below and shows: Status of the DTA, Entry into force, Applicable Rates (Dividends, Interest, Royalties and Technical Fees). With these days you can now understand things much more clearer when you read ActionAid Sweet Nothings Report or watch the BBC's Why Povery: Stealing Africa.

The DTAs are summarized as follows and can be found here: 

Amendment: 

After some enquiry, I realise I needed to defintion some terms for easy undertsanding of the table.

The term “technical fees” means payments of any kind to any person, other than to an employee of the person making the payments, in consideration for any service of a technical, managerial or consultancy nature. [source] 

Mining and Employment

I love the debates that comes out of mining sector. But most of it is actually lack of understanding of several issues. That is where the problem is.

Mining essentially involves depleting of natural resources and degradation of the environment when extracting the needed resource from the ground. The official definition will go as: mining means extracting minerals from the earth. So whatever decision one has to make about mining, it should address the depleted resources, the negative externalities of that depletion, the cost on environment (wont include this in externality), the positive externalities (such as job creation, revenue for tax collectors, etc), etc

Now a rational decision on this issue will have to weigh the costs and benefits before any decision to allow mining to take place anywhere. For Zambia and other developing countries, I think the costs and benefits should also take into account the costs of collecting that revenue in the wake of tax avoidance and tax evasion. It certainly wont pay, to include revenue which no one will ever collect!

So can we sum all the costs and then the benefits? Will any mining project pass that test? Frankly, I think mining in this country has more costs than benefits since the privatization jump on our roofs. We have seen more depletion and rarely few positive outcomes! Even Switzerland makes more tax revenue from our mines that we do. I think we are lost in the "employment" fight we don't see the real costs to this nation. If our aim was to really get the maximum benefit from mining, a lot of things would be done differently. Since that is not the aim, but employment, our aims fall short of any benefits. Let me explain.

Mining Efficiency

For this country and indeed any country to achieve mining efficiency, that is, extract the minerals at least cost and sell them at high price, we need to look at the costs of that extraction. Costs are many and include, royalties, labour, fuel, rentals, licenses, etc. A reduction in one of those elements will reduce the cost of extraction and surely makes for a good bargain.

However, the country imposes a cost on the mines through demand not to lay off workers. Hallo! We want efficiency, so the mining company would really do good in that area if they reduced the work force and instead invest in capital equipment that would extract the minerals cheaply compared with a man with a pick! Are we then saying we can do with the inefficiency in the mining sector as long as the people are employed? I have heard people say, they would rather have that since mines "cheat" in taxes. My view is different, if we need to do something, we must do it the best way we can. If we can't do that, we should as well close the mines and find something else to do. Mining companies may actually be motivated to "cheat" on the basis of balancing their books since we have bloated there work force. Now if we offer no conditions to them, we will have a better bargaining stand since all mining companies need to do is carry out an efficient operation.

My take on the mining would actually be to run them on a whole new platform that will force efficiency and productivity in the country. Many compare with Chile. This is a wrong comparison. They don't even need value addition as it is useless for them. Our case if different. We own less in the mines compared to 50% of which they own. Therefore, our aim should be to get more from these mines in form of value addition. The country will get more from the value added compared to exporting of raw minerals. If the companies want to export the raw minerals, we control it through taxes. Anyone exporting should pay export tax! Right now, there is no motivation to add value to the copper that we export. Tax revenue has also eluded the country. Meaning we are losing out on both fronts!

What Value Addition?

The value addition I talked about, still remains. It is here.

The setting up of "support industries" around the mining sector will bring in better rewards, especially if we stop the export and tax leakage in the current exports of the mining sector.

Environment Stance

There exist a principle in environment which states that: Polluter pays principle. This simply means whoever will bring about harm to the environment will have to clean it up and pay for all the costs related to that pollution.

So our position for someone to setup a mine in a lake is simple, how then will that person clean up the environment. When that issue has been clearly sorted out, we move now to the other costs, then look at the revenue one will make and address the positive externalities on that end. 

But what shocks me, is people talking about the employment that will be created by the mine and ignoring the cost of that environment! We are doing it wrong, lets start from the cost aspects and only move to looking at the employment when the cleaning up of the environment has been addressed. What value is a mine employing 2000 workers and then a million die from environmental degradation? Are we really so into making jobs available that we will even jeopardize our environment to get people employed?

What are our cost - benefit analysis on this issue? Environmental issues are one thing that should come first, everything else second. What villagers are there who would cost the country's environment to be employed. What genuine revenue will come out of this.

Mining Should Not Be For Employment

Mining sector should therefore not be looked at as an employment engine. It is a resource sector whose returns should be pumped into the economy, clean up the mess it generates and ensure these returns are pumped back into high growth sectors of the economy.

The "support industries" should then be the area of focus for employment. These will employ more and will have great efficiency in the mining sector. The people will benefit more from this than imposition of employees on the mines. It is a modern world which uses modern technology, the mines are not any different. If they can't contribute to tax revenues, do we really need them to operate in this country?

So What Is Wrong With SI 89 of 2013???

There has been a lot of debate over this piece of legislation leading to its death. Few actually know what it entails. I thought I should touch on this matter as a way to get back online after weeks of absence!

So what is it? Statutory Instrument 89 of 2013 had one action and it can simply be explained as: it allowed mining companies to export mineral ores and concentrates without paying export duty. So they only paid mineral royalty and then got free "exporting rights". Mineral ores and concentrates? - That is rightly described by our president as soil! I agree with him in full. 

Some say, but mineral royalty was paid! Yes it was! But like all costs of production, mineral royalty is deductible! So its taken as a cost and will affect their overall "profitability" for tax purposes. But on the other hand, export duty sticks and will be "revenue" to government and the people of Zambia. Especially that the item being exported is in raw or intermediate state. on the other hand, if value addition has been done to this, from concentrates or ores to finished or semi-finished products, you can export without duty since you have added value. I actually believe our mineral royalty is useless on the basis of being deductible if we want to get something out. But sticking with best practices, we have it!

From the above therefore, one would expect mining companies to be interested in adding value and then export without duty. But we have a strange bunch of investors that would otherwise find any loop-hole to export without paying taxes. So they stockpile and make it impossible for the people of Zambia to collect the mineral royalty. In my own belief, this is the worst kind of blackmail that we have since in the mining sector and it should be fought with strategy.

Export duty would be the only sure way of getting something out of this. But it was almost tactically dodged! I wont go into who did this and why. That to me is a political and assumption laden topic which would not do justice on this blog.

Mining Tax Regime

I think our mining tax regime needs not only a face-lift, but an entire body work. There has to be a way that we make sure the mines do the best in there work and contribute to this country. 

Our selling of the mines is the greatest mistake that Zambia made. We may have had to sell, but we should have done it with out heads, not cheques! Any sell is welcome, but it must be done in a way that will benefit this country and the future generations especially that it involves non-renewable resources. It is for this reason that I always regard Chiluba's government as selling the biggest part of Zambia. I stand by my words.

Let us be frank, if the mines wont pay taxes and are not owned by us, then why do we have them? If we own them and don't pay taxes, its our mines, our exports and our returns. If we make no profits, we have at least got the benefits that the mines currently get. Why would they own mines which will never make any profits? But there are towns in europe that benefit from the returns on the mines when the same mines fail to pay export duty is it really rational for us to let the mines be in the same private hands they have been?

Option one as far as I am concerned is get the mines back and pay them for the wasted time. We then find a way to run the mines. 

Inefficiency? Well, every parastatal is expected to be inefficient. But serious, ZTE, Philips and BBC are parastatals, would we say they are inefficient? I should add that Zamtel is a parastatal and there must be something that was done when it was sold that has improved its efficiency. That is what is needed to be done also in the mining sector. If the current owners have made it efficient, we too can make it efficient. After all, they have made foreign owners happy!

Option two is to make sure we change the mining tax regime and ensure that the mines pay their fair share of taxes. Why is it that there is always a blackmail when government changes or tries to tax the mines? Employment is the only contribution these mines add to Zambia. They also use it as a tool to blackmail us to have their way. So if we run the mines, we control the employment, get the financial benefits and don't have to worry about tax avoidance which to me has been a bigger problem. If we can't tax them properly, we will never get anything out of this, and we will continuously complain about it.

We need to resolve this issue in full and in our favour. I hate thinking about the silly court cases that they always want to threaten the people with. But seriously, I think we need to up our game and prepare adequately in getting back the mines. This is a failed attempt at privatization. 

Back to S.I. 89 of 2013, it allowed mining companies to export mineral ores and concentrates without paying export duties. Clearly this meant, they mine and get everything without a single ngwee left in the country except the employment they created. No one should support this, and we should make sure we do everything possible to stop it.

G8 Focus on Taxes, Transparency, and Trade

It is such a great time in many African countries economically. After the Asian miracle, we have an Africa which is growing fast than other regions of the world. A great time indeed.

But this growth has many many obstacles which make some gains in GDP growth mere academic exercise for a lot of countries - Zambia included. Why? Well to start off, we have an economy propelled by the mines whose contribution to the economy is actually not that great. We have read about the way our multi-nationals have taken almost everything out through tax avoidance or worst case tax evasion. If there was a good contribution from most of these multi-nationals, our tax contribution as citizens through (Pay As You Earn) PAYE would be reduced. But alas, even Switzerland gets a bigger chunk of 'our' money than we do!

Why is the state of affairs like that? Well, partly because I believe the West benefited from this arrangement! Do you think Switzerland would not enjoy stolen money presented to them as taxes? Honestly? They have built an economy out of the proceedings of crimes (as my Zambian law would put it). Think about it, they have built a system of secrecy on all banks and they are proud of it and say, you want to sort it out, deal with your issues in your country. The West enjoyed this and it was business as usual. 

But as you know, there is a little thing I learnt from Martin Luther King's statements and now quotations. I have kept this in my head at all times and has really guided me to make some decisions since I was in grade nine.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" - Martin Luther King Jr.

There was an injustice on many resource rich countries and the beneficiaries just turned a blind eye to the happenings. But the threat has now caught up with them! Tax avoidance has now not only hit the resource rich third world countries, it has hit the "first world". It has hit them so badly that the G8 meeting has put the three (3) Ts on the agenda.

But as life would have it, the G8 is a group of 8 from the world's eleven (11) wealthiest countries. The three (3) missing countries include China, Brazil and India. 

The good news, the west and us are being attacked perhaps by the same enemy! So we now have an opportunity to make things right and just. ?The demand from the resource rich nations has just been one - access to information. The g8 meeting is also working on making access to information a priority and an agreement should be worked on those lines. So maybe because we speak the same language on this issue, we can now move together and make progress? I seriously doubt it! The west still enjoys and would like to enjoy the fruits of crime in African countries. I will be shocked if they prove me wrong by actually working for the better standing of all countries facing this enemy. My belief is that they would come up with agreements that will suit themselves and leave the third world on their own path to freedom. Maybe under the G11 would we expect something seriously correct - maybe!

I have great respect for Cameron for making this topic priority. He has done a lot by just putting it as an agenda item. I wish more could be said on this issue. And I believe his statement "Making sure we have more trade deals so we keep prices down, making sure we have greater transparency so we can help developing countries get the tax and revenue that they need, and this issue of taxation, making sure we crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, so right across the world, countries get the tax revenue they need to keep taxes down for hard-working people." as quoted here, is a good one, but I think the motivation is wrong. It should have been done on its own merit when the issue started coming out! Not when they have been hit by the same "crime". If they had not been hit, they would have gone on with business as usual. That is exactly what is wrong with the economy structure at the moment. Things only change when the powers that be are in the firing line. We need to strike a balance and act when something wrong has been sighted.

Lets pray and hope the G8 makes a good outing of these issues as they can make things better for the world. We have to work to improve the taxation and justice in revenue collecting. I always say, there is a time that the west will need justice in such matters when the developing countries actually develop. It looked like a joke, but today, even the G8 countries are not among the 8 wealthiest nations. There is a group of "emerging economies" that have emerged and got into the top 8! Imagine 40 years from today who will be among the top 8 wealthiest countries.

Fight Tax Evasion/Avoidance ... Don't Give Aid

A lot of African people have stood up and said no to Aid. For obvious reasons, Aid has been around for decades with little to no hope of seeing Africa move a step closer to development and provide for its people. 

In extreme cases, people have even claimed a reduction in living standards as statistics show that African people have become poorer in the time of Aid. From 11% poor to 66% is a scary statistic. 

"Despite a deluge of Aid between the years of 1970 and 1998, poverty on the continent skyrocketed from 11 percent of the population to 66 percent, which means over six hundred million Africans are now impoverished." (Guernica)

This is under the claim that over 1 trillion dollars have been sent. A figure nicely fought by pro-aid people like Owen Barder that the figure is less than trillions of dollars! "since aid began in the 1960s donors have given a grand total of $502 billion to sub-Saharan Africa, which is worth about $866 billion in today’s prices. (Table 29; excludes debt relief.)". But is it really trillion dollars or no does not bother me. The fact that it has not worked will not make a point for it because the figure is $200billion less to be regarded as a failure! Will it make the point more true if they said 'despite the 500billion to 800billion of aid, there is nothing to show that aid is helping Africa (oh sub-Sahara Africa?' I think the substance that aid has failed to improve the lives of the continent is priority in considering this issue even if you disagree on the figures. I think the case that this policy should be re-looked at is a good one and one that should be taken on for people truely interested in seeing the growth of Africa and an improvement of people's life. Surely, there is no transparency on aid (even recognized by the OECD - "The current lack of transparency and predictability of aid have been recognized as key bottlenecks in making aid more effective."), will a $200billion not be spent through back door "help"? If you really want the $1 trillion to show up somewhere before you indicate that aid has failed.

My alternative to aid has been fairness in trade and the West not stealing the resources from Africa. After all, it is common knowledge that the West benefits more from Africa and only send Aid as a personal action to sleep at night. 

By calculations that need not be very complicated and require a lot of resources, just qwids (1) I have created a graph of aid inflows into Africa from 1960 to 2012.

Now we see how much aid has been increasingly off-loaded into Africa and one would expect a corresponding effect on eradicating poverty. The simple graphic data I could find is on a working paper by Dr. Mark Perry (University of Michigan) from this post.

Not much improvement from the '70s to warranty a fight to maintain the status quo. Obvisoiusly, updated data is needed and I am working on it.

On the other hand, data from different sources shows the same dismal result - aid is not helping at all. "Helping Africa is a noble cause, but the campaign has become a theater of the absurd – the blind leading the clueless. The record of Western aid to Africa is one of abysmal failure. More than $500 billion in foreign aid – the equivalent of four Marshall Aid Plans – was pumped into Africa between 1960 and 1997. Instead of increasing development, aid has created dependence.....
The more aid poured into Africa, the lower its standard of living. Per capita GDP of Africans living south of the Sahara declined at an average annual rate of 0.59 percent between 1975 and 2000. Over that period, per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity declined from $1,770 in constant 1995 international dollars to $1,479. The evidence that foreign aid underwrites misguided policies and feeds corrupt and bloated state bureaucracies is overwhelming."(CATO Institute). I think Andrew Mwenda and Dambisa Moyo are on to something that can clearly be seen although fought by the likes of Bono and Bill Gates. Aid is not doing Africa any good.

Tax Problems

I believe this is an area where Bill Gates and the team can help Africa and not handouts! There is a lot of out flows in revenues from Africa which can have far better impact on development prospects and eradicating poverty than aid. I would have loved to show how good Bill Gates' company was doing on that front, but this is not helping. I wouldn't want to think of the effect on Africa itself.

So if Africa and the West got together and fought this battle and seriously on disclosure, more results would come out than what Aid has done so far. Maybe as a result of recent fights by the West, Africa may actually benefit! 

"Rich countries have promised much but delivered little meaningful support to African countries on tax evasion, said a report ahead of a G8 meeting chaired by David Cameron.

The UK prime minister has made tax and transparency key subjects for next month's summit at Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, but this year's Africa Progress Panel report, Equity in Extractives, criticises the rich countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for their failure to strengthen disclosure standards.

Africa loses twice as much in illicit financial outflows as it receives in international aid, the panel said. It is unconscionable that some companies, often supported by dishonest officials, use unethical tax avoidance, transfer pricing and anonymous company ownership to maximise profits, while millions of Africans go without adequate nutrition, health and education, the panel added."(Guardian)

I have said it before on this blog, no help is coming out of the West on this issue. It has more contribution than Aid will ever have. Most importantly, it would kill the dependence that Aid has created.

Edited:
You may wish to read the latest developments on this topic here (Give us access to information on tax havens and tax avoiders, African leaders tell David Cameron ahead of G8 Summit.)

Tax Avoidance Now Hitting The West

Africa has been trying for many years to find a solution to tax avoidance. There was little interest from Europe and the USA. Mostly because they actually gained from this tax that escaped from Africa and landed in their banks.

But life is a funny thing. What goes around, surely comes around. Now the USA is at pains to stop tax avoidance. Apple is accused of $74bn US tax evasion and thats what the news is all about.

The good news that has come out of this confusion is the push for harmonized tax system that will make it impossible to avoid paying their rightful contribution to the nation's treasury. Good news fro countries like Zambia whose tax base has been greatly eroded by such actions of multi-nationals.

I believe the way out is simple. Most tax havens would die without helping multi-nationals avoid taxes. So if there is a move to stop that, these tax havens will reject such a move. Do you think Ireland and Mauritius to agree to measures that will make it impossible for them to get money into their economy? But on the other hand, if the countries being affected unite to fight this kind of tax treatment and setup was to make these companies pay, great things can come up. Maybe even disagree to have Tax Agreements with these nations to force them to comply and make tax avoidance a thing of the past.

A positive outcome of this whole tax avoidance to me is the indication that the world is slowing becoming a solid market place, where if you ignore what is happening in Africa - tough luck, it will hit you in America harder than you thought. Apple is hopefully a beginning so that the world can come up with a solid united fight against tax evasion and avoidance.

Time To Nationalize

It is always interesting to look at how Economist look at different views they have on an issue in the economy. An interesting view if you are an Economist in the field also.

I have been looking at the issue of the mines and the outcomes of which party is in charge of the mines. Right now, we are made to believe mines are not making any profit and so their contributions to taxation. Seriously if the operations are so bad that no one pays taxes, it would not make business sense to even own the mine. So why don't the owners leave? Why would anyone continue with a business operation which does not make sense (both generic, economic or business sense). If it really was the case, they would have left. 

I believe they have not left because all these loses that they complain about is a properly engineered part of transfer pricing! They find all loses in the chain and the money and profits show up in Switzerland. How else will a company pay taxes in Switzerland over Zambia's minerals when Switzerland has no copper? That is an issue that shocks me. 

My perspective is even strange to other economists. I think it will make good sense if the same loses that the mining companies are complaining about leading to no payment of taxes to be enjoyed by government. Why can't government take over the burden from the mining companies and the little resources enjoyed by the owners of the mines be ploughed back into Zambia? The country will not experience loses as much as the mining companies. The difference will be, there will be worry about the loses and exports since all returns from the mining activities will be back here in Zambia!

I know any modern Economist avoids using the words of nationalization and favours privatization. I believe things should be looked at a different angle altogether. Zambia has been using modern economic theories and perspectives since time in memorial, have we seen any goodness out of that? When the mines were owned by the people of Zambia, the mining towns were doing way better than today. Even ZESCO was selling electricity properly and a rate better than it is today. So the two experiences we have had should give us a lesson we can surely use to our advantage. Even the football pitches were a marvel to be in. Need we forget the schools that we all dreamt of going to? So what has changed with going back and getting the best out of it.

From where I stand, the whole western world has ganged up on Africa and its resources. There is too much complex way of ripping the resources of Africa such that if we try to follow the logical steps, we will be doomed. Ireland, Luxemburg, Netherlands and now even Mauritius have been set up in such a way that they will use all possible ways of reducing taxes so that Multi-Nationals find their way to Africa through these places and rip all the resources. There is 10 times more resources leaving Africa than the ones coming in in form of "AID"! Had this been a straight forward business, Africa would have been far better than any country in Europe or the Americas. But that does not appear to be.

Moreover, if we look at the China arrangement, you will agree with me that China does not follow the "modern" economics. They use planned economy and have been heavily criticized by the west. Did the Chinese system fail them? No they have producing for the world! So anyone looking at a way to develop, would surely think China is a way to go! They have more state owned enterprises competing in the world than you would imagine. We have taken these as our brands for some reason without looking at them and their history. Look at these:

ZTE Corporation (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment Corporation)

ZTE is no upstart. The company was founded in 1985 by a handful of state-owned companies affiliated with the Ministry of Aerospace Industry and has grown along with China's big phone companies, which are ZTE's top customers.That is pure genius!

China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. 

Bharat Electronics Limited

So why do we fear nationalization  After all I think the mines will contribute more to the economy when all their owners are Zambians. Many countries have a way of dealing with State-owned enterprises, we can find a way that can work if we divorce politics from the running.

I know its wishful thinking, but it is worth every typed word. We should nationalize the mines - The benefits far, far out weigh the costs (I am a student Economist, I should know that!)

Zambia Sugar's Sweet Nothings Report

Another report has come out clearly showing how multi-nationals are not helping Zambia by simply paying their fair share of taxes. What is sad is that this company comes from the UK where they send aid to Zambia but the amount of aid is far less than what Zambia losses out in taxes. 

ActionAid did a research "Sweet Nothings" which is contained here. Take time to read it and watch a clip here.

I think we need to seriously look at our tax laws and especially our Agreements with tax havens to avoid tax being avoided by Multi-nationals. Having spent time looking at the activities of many of these companies, I have unbelievably been convinced, if there is any suspicion of tax avoidance or evasion, this country must take matters into its own hand and deal with it.

There is no point is getting aid, which is most cases is fraction of what is being stolen from here. The legal system is not doing us justice. We need to amend what needs mending and cancel what needs to be cancelled. How long do we need to scream "trade not aid"? I actually think we should change that to "fair trade not aid".

Mining Taxation - What Are We Doing About It?

Many economists in Zambia right now call for windfall tax for the mines in order to make mines contribute their fair share of taxes. Basically the idea is that mining is receiving a lot of returns as the copper prices are high. We should therefore setup a mining tax regime that will be able to capture that "extra" profit that the mines are getting. Its a fair argument and one that makes sense when you look at it. Every work pays taxes, Zambia being a small economy, the taxes needed to provide services are smaller. Therefore the profits that the mines make in a day would nicely cover all the expenses.

However, we must never live believing the mine owners are interested in the wellbeing of Zambians. If they did, the economy of Zambia right now would be far better than were it is right now. Only a fraction of what they get would change everything. But its that greedy and selfishness of mine owners that make the windfall tax a useless path for me. I know a lot of economists would be shocked to hear that. But I have points that need to be taken into consideration before you judge me.

Stealing Benefits Them

Mine owners will do everything they can to steal every little Ngwee they can from Zambia and proudly send it to the west without a problem. Switzerland makes more money from mining of copper than Zambia. Do the Swiss people have windfall tax?

These people will proudly contribute to the tax in Switzerland than Zambia where the copper comes from. All sorts of transfer pricing and complex avoidance of tax methods are employed to make sure they pay nothing to Zambia and pay a lot more to Europe.

The point is, its not the windfall that will make someone eager to steal wealth from our mines to contribute a fair share. They aim at stealing and having a windfall tax when there is a complex plan of transfer pricing, will bring little to the treasury in any case.

Most mines "sell" the produce at "arms length" to their sister companies. Now if that was true, Zambia would raise money tax revenue from copper that Switzerland. Since it isn't, there is a proper case to assume the "arms length" being talked about does not exist. If there was even an ounce of honest in mining companies, the returns from copper would be in levels that we would not complain about.

Government Has Sovereign Right to Tax 

We have to remember for this discussion that a government has the sovereign right to tax. Government is the only power that can tax or not. It has control on what it can tax and how it can tax it."

Allison Christians

"Tax policy creates and reflects relationships between the market, the citizen, and the state. As a result, traditional tax policy discourse centers around the premise that decisions about taxation should be made exclusively within nations, independent of outside concern and interference."

What we need to add to that is that, tax avoidance has outside interference and its that outside force that make certain decisions irrelevant. Windfall tax being one of them. It is easier to avoid the complexity of taxing these companies that make people choose a simple path of windfall tax. I think otherwise. We should remember that our government has the right to tax without interference, and it should make the right decision to tax.

So unless there is no way of detecting the avoidance of tax in the system, the government should make the right decision and take necessary steps to tax all that need to be.

Are We Going Back on Tax?

I always complained about lack of export duty on mineral outputs. Seriously, this is a wasting asset and we allow it to go out of the country without the exporter paying anything? That was a bad thing that the previous government took on board.

 

However, this has been nicely worked on and there is progress in that direction. What worries me is the loss of the "Sovereign Right" to tax. What we cried about on copper seem to have been transferred to Manganese!

Manganese is it now the new plan to change from copper to manganese? Or is it that the new players in the powers are linked to manganese? This is something we need to work on and not go back on taxation.

 

Why allow people to export and not pay for the wasting assests and you complain about the failure of the mining industry to contribute to the revenue share!

 

Nothing is more to my heart that a failure of the system due to the people involved in it. Seriously, we have the most sacred job of taking care of the country now for future generations to benefit from the wealth that we have. But the moment we come into the picture, we come up with plans of making sure people "steal" the assets that are needed to develop the country. We should not make statements which are parallel to what is happening on the gorund we must take it upon ourselves to ensure we do what is right for the nation. This clearly is not happening at the moment. It has not been happening for the past 30years or so. Zambia is bigger than all of us and we must be within our powers what is right.
I seriously didn't expect that the country's wealth will continue getting out of this country without paying the simplest of all charges - export duty. But it is happening.