Someone explain to me what "government take" is, as so eloquently ascribed to this #LNG project by the minister. What do the specifics entail where fiscal structure in addition to retained earnings have about? Claims that fiscal structure is what amounts to this "government take" (of 75%) would so too entail the following insinuations:
Assumption that benchmarked corporate tax being at 30% (in addition to mineral sector deductibles) ought see out of that 75% of so called "government take" a remainder of 45% if not less, and so;
• In alignment to accounting rules where stock holder equity is concerned, would rather have an assumption best aligned that sees out of the 30% mandate corporate tax as per best practice benchmark, a 70% private equity for stock holders (@TPDCTZ, @Shell & @Equinor and or ARA petroleum and so...), of which now stands at 100% of net profits to be distributed in the event of profits, & thus furthermore diluting 45% (government take remainder) and assumably not affecting @shells & @equinor & ARA Petroleum and so's stake negatively, but rather positively at which will now stand at 55% where constant and where positively diluted, at 68.5%.
• With the abouve, at the event of which dialution is out of the equation, @TPDCTZ is still minority stock holder of private holdings vested in to. And even more of a minority stock holder where dilution is in effect. As follows; Dilution in effect - as 70% post gross earnings deductions sees the remaining 45% of so called "government take" now realistically stand at 31.5% as the 70% now stands at 100% since the 45% of 75% "government take" needs retain its real value in accord to corporate tax proceeds in correlation to "gvt take percentiles" of which realistically has it at 45% of 70 and not 45% of 100% (newly 70%) shareholder equity. i.e (45 / 100 * 70 = 31.5%)
• And with such, during the event of shareholder equity distribution in the shape of dividends and so, in addition to overall claim towards assets would have undiluted value of @shell & @equinor & or ARA etc... inflated towards 68.5% where @TPDCTZ deflated to 31.5%.
This in my book is not progress of contractual negotiations where our natural resources are on the chopping board. Unless I'm missing a trick that is with respective assumptions - @jmakamba kindly enlighten me. Being a minority shareholder in both instances (as TAX IS NOT S.E) - sees Tanzania and @tpdctz with inability to mobilize it's resource! In addition to market rates where investment capitial and export market activity is concerned, I am yet to be convinced whether we have maximized negotiation efforts in a time where the West is desperate and the East (Asia) are more than willing to do sensible business.
@SuluhuSamia On the contrary, if it's 75% exclusive of fiscal structure that goes to @TPDCTZ then IMPRESSIVE! If otherwise - we do not OWN this project! Tax is Tax and shares are shares! Taxes do not make boardroom decisions! By being a minority shareholder, any buy back leverage would entail stock valuation of offshore capital assets such as refineries that needed not tethering to Tanzanian Gas. @Nishati2017.
Speculative but so too probably the best bet to ongoings. And with such, since the business model is tethered to capital goods in target export markets - true value of this deal is moreso 31.5% on Tanzania's behalf post taxes & dilution where stock ownership is concerned.
In future, any Public Private Partnership projects ought entail post tax figures are we to have realistic structure of ownership in ventures embarked by governments and evaid losses in international courtroom proceeds. @jumuiya @EABCjumuiya @_AfricanUnion.
Until further dissection of this "government take" "fiscal structure" and more importantly "stock ownership" percentiles are clearly dissected, we'll further grab at MOU undertakings on the word of a few.
I for one would love a link to this Momorandum of Understanding. @MacMungyIntel
> #ProgressiveLivingInDevelopingEconomies N.B: https://5f79ebb966e9d.site123.me/blog/tanzanian-lng-euromarket-lever
