THE Low family fortune was built by its patriarch the late Datuk Low Meng Tak. The family fortune was consolidated in 2008 into a global family trust for estate planning purposes.
The Low Family is extensive;
Yet it is only Larry Low and family who claim to be beneficiaries of the family assets. While it is true that the assets involved are held via different trusts, and while it may be possible that these assets were financed by Larry Low from his personal wealth, built on his entitlement or share of the earnings of the Low Meng Tuck global family trust, it is safe to say that only PM Najib and his loyal deputies believe that fairy tale.
Singtel Optus Chairman Paul O'Sullivan's letter demanding Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal Party immediately introduce laws that would allow same sex marriage coincides with a AUD 330 million tax dispute between Singtel and the ATO. Perception matters and Singtel's interference in Australian politics may be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of its tax dispute. Disputes of this magnitude involve negotiations at the highest levels of government and the public position Singtel has taken on a matter that may well cost Turnbull his job cannot but be seen as a form of blackmail. END Reference
Singapore Telecommunications will "vigorously defend" a $326 million tax bill it received last week from the Australian Tax Office, dating back to its takeover of Optus in 2001 for $17.2 billion.
This is the first time Singtel has revealed the size of the potential bill. Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd first received a tax position paper from ATO in late 2013, and then a Statement of Audit in late 2014.
Optus was purchased by SingTel in 2001 from London-based Cable & Wireless Photo: Optus
In 2015, Singtel received a final Statement of Audit Position, and then in July this year it received the outcome of an Independent Review, an internal service offered by the ATO to large corporations.It informed shareholders in it's first quarter results that Singtel has not yet made a provision for the tax bill.
And then on Thursday Singtel noted in its quarterly results it may pay the tax bill from the current financial year's free cash flow. It estimates free cash flow of $1.4 billion, but a footnote added this figure is "excluding payment to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) in respect of the amended assessments received on 2 November 2016 from the determinations on the acquisition financing of Optus".
A spokeswoman confirmed it had received an updated assessment.
"The amended assessments amount to A$326 million, comprising primary tax of A$268 million and interest of A$58 million. We intend to vigorously defend the claim, including pursing all avenues of objection as appropriate," she said. A spokesperson for the ATO declined to comment on Singtel's case, but said it is "resolutely tackling tax avoidance and ensuring multinationals and large companies pay the right amount of tax in Australia".
"We have been overt that we are actively pursuing intra-company financing and other arrangements multinationals and large companies put in place to avoid paying tax in Australia. The majority of large corporates pay the right amount of tax in Australia and are open and transparent in their dealings with us."
Singtel-Optus chief executive Allen Lew. Photo: James Alcock
This is the second tax dispute involving the 2001 deal. Last year the ATO won a court case with the company that sold Optus to Singtel, Cable & Wireless, which wanted a $452.45 million tax refund.
The London-based Cable & Wireless sold it's 82 per cent stake in Optus to Singtel for $6.2 billion 15 years ago. It has been working for years to win the funds from the ATO, claiming that of the $586.9 million deposited with ANZ in September 2001 to pay tax to the Commonwealth of Australia, just $134.5 million was legal.
Crude , no cash: Aramco does not deny that Petronas JV will not involve a cash injection - Transaction is essentially a hybrid barter deal
by Ganesh Sahathevan
As previously reported the Aramco press release concerning its JV with Petronas did not say that Aramco is investing USD 7 Billion in Malaysia.In fact it implies its participation in the Aramco-Petronas JV will be in crude oil, not cash.
The story was published after a query was put to Aramco CEO Amin Naseer.Naseer has since been sent the article published, which he has not denied.
It appears then that the Aramco-Petronas JV is essentially a hybrid barter deal,which Aramco and Petronas have described as one where Aramco agrees to supply "up to 70 per cent of the crude feedstock requirements of the refinery. (while) Petronas, on the other hand, will supply natural gas, power and other utilities". In addition, there appears to be some provision for Aramco to acquire a 50% stake "in selected ventures and assets of the Rapid project within Pengerang Integrated Complex."
Note that the "selected ventures and assets" are not named in the announcement.It would have been a simple matter to name the company or companies that would be acquired, but Aramco and Petronas have chosen not to do so.
Little wonder then that Petronas CEO Wan Zulkiflee chose to air his objections to the deal publicly,
Wan Zulkiflee expressed surprise at the report of Saudi Aramco pulling out of Rapid when it had not gone into any agreement with the entity from Saudi Arabia.
“How can there be a situation of a party pulling out of something when the party was not part of it in the first place?” he said referring to reports of Saudi Aramco supposedly pulling out of Rapid.
“From day one, we have stated that we are able to fully fund Rapid. We are and will not be dependent on anyone for this project. We are close to 60% complete, costs are within projections and the refinery will be ready by 2019 followed by the petrochemical portion by 2020.”
The above was preceded by an earlier report in The Star,dated 25 February 2017 in which Petronas seemed to be warning off PM Najib and his government.Headlined "Let Petronas Do Its Job", the story included the following statements:
There has been a fair bit of speculation surrounding Aramco inking a deal with Petronas in relation to the latter’s Refinery and Petrochemical Integrated Development or Rapid project in Pengerang, Johor. The latest is that both parties will sign an agreement on Monday during King Salman’s visit to Malaysia.
Petronas has not said anything about any potential deal with Aramco, except that it is always in talks with potential partners, but that any deal inked would have to be on Petronas’ terms. In other words, beneficial to Petronas and not lopsided, as it should be.
Petronas’ president and CEO Datuk Wan Zulkiflee Wan Ariffin recently told editors in Kuala Lumpur that Petronas never takes on projects with the view that it has to depend on investors for funding to complete the project.
That said, partnering Aramco should have its benefits, considering it is not only the company with the vastest oil reserves, but also the most valuable company in the world today. The deal just has to be struck on equally beneficial terms.
.....the O&G resources of the country belong to all Malaysians, and they have to be handled with care.
It does appear then that it was the Petronas CEO himself who was trying to discourage Aramco, and he was not afraid of doing so publicly.
Then there is the matter of the EPF. Najib is reported to have said:
“Some unpatriotic people had spread claims that the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) was almost bankrupt and that the government was unable to pay the salaries of its civil servants.
“The Saudi Arabian government had received this wrong information about our country and thus, were quite doubtful about investing in Malaysia.
“We had to meet them and correct the facts that Malaysia is among the best countries in the world (to invest in). When they were convinced, they finally agreed to invest with us” .
However, Aramco sells its crude to Petronas, and it would,as any oil company would, be interested only in the viability of its client. If otherwise, Shell, ExxonMobil and others would not be investing in say Nigeria. Put in another way, oil companies have long ago learnt to limit their exposure to the oil assets that they deal with, managing to ring-fence these from the problems of the countries they deal with.
Therefore the matter of EPF would be of interest only if the EPF is expected to bail-out the RAPID project, for a bail-out is what it would be.If not, the EPF would already be an investor in the project. A bail out should not be unexpected, given that the JV agreement with Aramco seems not to involve any injection of cash.
