OSLO – Norway’s $1-trillion (R12-trillion) sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest, set out new expectations on Tuesday for the 9,100 companies it invests in regarding the way they prevent and fight corruption internally.
The fund suggested, among other things, that boards should ensure that firms establish anti-corruption policies and procedures to prevent and address corruption and that these should be clearly communicated to employees.
“Companies should have a whistleblowing mechanism that provides a separate and confidential escalation route when reporting through a line manager is not appropriate, or if the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous,” the fund said in the document.
The fund funnels the proceeds of Norway’s oil and gas production. It invests in some 9,100 companies worldwide, as well as bonds and property.
It is forbidden by law from investing in firms that produce nuclear weapons or landmines, or are involved in serious and systematic human rights violations, among other criteria.
OSLO, Feb 13 (Reuters) – Norway’s $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest, set out new expectations on Tuesday for the 9,100 companies it invests in regarding the way they prevent and fight corruption internally.
The fund suggested, among other things, that boards should ensure that firms establish anti-corruption policies and procedures to prevent and address corruption and that these should be clearly communicated to employees.
“Companies should have a whistleblowing mechanism that provides a separate and confidential escalation route when reporting through a line manager is not appropriate, or if the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous,” the fund said in the document.
The fund funnels the proceeds of Norway’s oil and gas production. It invests in some 9,100 companies worldwide, as well as bonds and property.
It is forbidden by law from investing in firms that produce nuclear weapons or landmines, or are involved in serious and systematic human rights violations, among other criteria. (Reporting by Gwladys Fouche, editing by Terje Solsvik)
IT services and outsourcing provider Wipro Limited and Tata Steel Ltd are the two Indian firms that have been selected among 135 of the world’s most ethical companies for 2018 by the US-based think tank Ethisphere Institute.
The 135 companies dedicated to “defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices” were selected from 23 countries across 57 industries, Ethisphere said in a statement late on Monday.
Microsoft, Dell, Salesforce, and Adobe are some of the global tech giants who figured in the 2018 list.
“Over the last 12 years, we have repeatedly seen that those companies who focus on transparency and authenticity are rewarded with the trust of their employees, their customers, and their investors,” said Ethisphere CEO Timothy Erblich.
“While negative headlines might grab attention, the companies who support the rule of law and operate with decency and fair play around the globe will always succeed in the long term,” Erblich added.
The listed ethical companies outperformed the large-cap sector over five years by 10.72 per cent and over three years by 4.88 per cent.
“We are honoured to be listed among the World’s Most Ethical Companies for the fifth consecutive year,” said Michael Dell, Chairman and CEO of Dell Technologies.
“Ethics and integrity matter at Dell.
We work hard to earn our customers’ trust, improve our communities and inspire our team members through sound, ethical decision-making,” he added.
The institute will organise an event in New York on March 13 to felicitate the companies where PepsiCo Chairperson and CEO Indra Nooyi is expected to deliver the keynote address.
“At Microsoft, trust and integrity are core to our values and critical to our success. We’re passionate about applying the power of technology to improve our world, and that starts with doing business in a way that builds and maintains trust with our customers,” said Microsoft President Brad Smith.
Investors in companies undergoing mergers, demergers or consolidation may be staring at a higher tax outgo as they may not be able to take advantage of the grandfathering benefit in the long-term capital gains (LTCG) tax. Cost step-up, or grandfathering, applies to listed shares held on January 31, 2018. The tax computation compares the original cost, along with the stock value on January 31, and grants benefit of the higher of the two. Until now, Section 49 of the Income Tax Act allowed carry-over of the cost of original shares for the new asset that emerged as a result of a corporate action such as merger, demerger or consolidation of a listed company. For example, the cost of shares of the amalgamating listed company could be carried over as cost of shares of an amalgamated listed company. ALSO READ: Sebi chief believes LTCG tax will have some impact on Indian markets However, the provisions of Section 49 do not allow for grandfathering. Recent clarifications by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) also make no mention of such cases. This would mean that the tax liability to the seller would accrue on gains calculated by deducting the original acquisition cost for shares as against the deemed cost step-up, or the grandfathering cost. “While the law provides for tax neutrality for merger, demerger, stock split and consolidation transactions by allowing carry-over of the original cost to the new asset, the revised law levying 10 per cent LTCG tax does not provide for grandfathering or cost step-up as on January 31, 2018, for such transactions,” said Bhavin Shah, leader, financial services tax, PwC India. Source: Thomson Reuters Shah said there could be a rush to sell equity shares held by investors in such cases before the record date. “The seller will be able to claim the cost step-up as a deduction and reduce the tax liability on LTCG if the shares are sold prior to the record date,” said Shah. According to Rajesh Gandhi, partner at Deloitte Haskins & Sells, even if the CBDT issues a circular as indicated on February 4, it is unlikely to allow the January 31 grandfathering benefit for shares received pursuant to corporate actions like mergers and demergers. “Technically, the grandfathering benefit will not be available if the shares are listed after January 31 because of how the term ‘fair market value’ is defined. This is of particular concern to private equity funds,” Gandhi observed. ALSO READ: How you can smartly use the systematic exit route to avoid LTCG tax The tax outgo can be significant. Say, an investor bought shares of company A at Rs 1 million 10 years ago.
After merger with company B post-January 31, the investor now holds shares of the merged entity worth Rs 50 million. If the investor sells the shares after April 1 for Rs 55 million, he will have to pay the 10 per cent LTCG tax on Rs 54 million (Rs 55 million minus Rs 1 million). Had the merger not happened, the tax would have to be paid only on Rs 5 million (the selling price of Rs 55 million minus the grandfathered cost of Rs 50 million as on January 31).
A quarter of property in England and Wales owned by overseas firms is held by entities registered in the British Virgin Islands, BBC analysis has found.
The Caribbean archipelago is the official home of companies that own 23,000 properties – more than any other country.
They are owned by 11,700 firms registered in the overseas territory.
The finding emerged from BBC analysis conducted of Land Registry data on overseas property ownership.
The research found there are around 97,000 properties in England and Wales held by overseas firms, as of January 2018.
It adds to concerns that companies registered in British-controlled tax havens have been used to avoid tax.
Close behind the British Virgin Islands (BVI), which has a population of just 30,600, are Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
Of the properties owned by overseas companies in England and Wales, two thirds are registered to firms in the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
Sorry, your browser cannot display this map
Map built by Carto. If you can’t see the map, please click here to open the same story on the BBC News website.
Note: Property locations are approximate based on the centre point of the postcode they fall into. As such they have been removed when the map is zoomed to the most detailed levels. Ownership information like the company name and country refer to the ultimate owner of the property, not necessarily the person or company that may rent or occupy the property.
Many foreign UK property owners are also officially headquartered in Hong Kong, Panama and Ireland.
The analysis provides a new picture of ownership of property by overseas companies in England and Wales following a decision last November to make the database public and free to access.
It found:
Close to half (44%) of all properties owned by overseas companies in England and Wales are located in London
More than one in ten (11,500) properties owned by overseas companies in England and Wales are located in the City of Westminster
More than 6,000 properties owned by foreign companies are in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
The government of the British Virgin Islands said it was incorrect to label the country as a tax haven.
It said that there were many practical reasons why UK properties might be owned by companies incorporated in the BVI.
It argued that BVI companies can bring together multiple investors and owners, which is useful for big commercial property deals that have investors in more than one country.
The BVI also said that it shared “necessary information” including ownership details with relevant authorities.
Among those entries in the database that disclosed a price, the most expensive was the former headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard, at 8-10 Broadway.
The site was purchased by the Abu Dhabi Financial Group in 2014 for £370m from the Mayor of London’s office. But it is officially owned by a Jersey-based company called BL Development.
The 1967 multi-storey block has now been demolished to make way for “a luxury collection of one to five bedroom apartments across six architecturally striking towers”. These range in price from £1.5m to more than £10m.
The leasehold of Admiralty Arch, the former government building off Trafalgar Squarer that straddles one end of The Mall, was sold to hotel developer Prime Investments for £141m. It is registered to a Guernsey-based entity, Admiralty Arch Hotels Ltd.
While the most expensive buildings are commercial properties such as hotels and office blocks in prime central London locations, many are residential properties rather than business premises.
Take Green Street, London W1 – a residential street of highly-desirable four-storey redbrick Victorian terraces, fronted by smart wrought-iron railings.
Walking east to west you’ll pass one terraced residence owned, according to the latest records, from the Turks and Caicos Islands by a company called Alliance Property Ltd. Next door is another residence owned by Lily Holding & Finance Inc, registered in BVI.
In all, 15 properties on the street are owned by companies registered in the British Virgin Islands, four in Jersey and one in the Isle of Man. Others have owners in Italy, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Accountants used to recommend using an offshore company to overseas buyers of property in the UK as a means of avoiding inheritance tax when the owner passed away.
“Until April 2017, if you weren’t resident in the UK and held a residential property via a company it was not counted as being an asset for UK-based inheritance tax purposes. So having a property through an offshore company meant you escaped inheritance tax,” says Mark Giddens, of accountants and consultants UHY Hacker Young.
However, since last year the government announced plans to close the loophole, dramatically reducing the attractions of offshore ownership of residential property.
Offshore jurisdictions such as BVI still offer buyers who wish to keep their names out of the public realm greater privacy than they would enjoy if they purchased their property as an individual.
While most tax havens have agreed to take part in automatic information exchange, allowing law enforcement agencies to discover the individuals who enjoy beneficial ownership of an offshore company, their names will not appear in the published data.
In contrast to residential properties owned by individuals, the Land Registry does not always release “price paid” figures for properties owned by companies.
Adding up the 27,835 properties whose most recent sale prices we know, the price paid was just over £55 billion.
Notes: The BBC analysed the January 2018 Overseas Companies Ownership data made public by the HM Land Registry. The data is accurate up to January 2018 and contains around 97,000 title records of freehold and leasehold property in England and Wales, registered to companies incorporated outside the UK. The map shows 71,000 of the 97,000 addresses. Those missing had incomplete data.
Seeking to crackdown on shell companies, the government has proposed to remove exemption available to firms with tax liability of up to Rs 3,000 from filing I-T returns beginning next fiscal. The Union Budget 2018-19 has rationalised the I-T Act provision relating to prosecution for failure to furnish returns. Thus, a managing director or a director in charge of the company during a particular financial year could be liable for prosecution in case of any lapse in filing I-T returns for any financial year beginning April 1. “The income tax departments would now track investments by these companies. Also, the focus will be on those firms that show less profit and also those who file I-T returns for the first time,” a senior finance ministry official said. There are around 12 lakh active companies in the country, out of which about 7 lakh are filing their returns, including annual audited report, with the ministry of corporate affairs.
Of this, about 3 lakh companies show ‘nil’ income. The Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act provided that if a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of income, he shall be punishable with imprisonment and fine. However, no prosecution could be initiated if the tax liability of an assessee does not exceed Rs 3,000. The government has amended the provision with effect from April 1, 2018 and removed the exemption available to companies. “In order to prevent abuse of the said proviso by shell companies or by companies holding benami properties, it is proposed to amend the provisions… so as to provide that the said sub-clause shall not apply in respect of a company,” it said. The official said that as many as 5 lakh are companies not filing returns and they could be a potential source of money laundering. “These could be small firms which are engaged in honest business, but there could be some which are a potential threat. We have to look into the data.” Nangia & Co Managing Partner Rakesh Nangia said though the amendment has been brought about to prevent abuse by shell companies/benami properties, checks similar to those placed in the law for invoking GAAR, should be in place to avoid genuine hardship. “Though the taxman may be driven by compulsions to ensure proper tax compliance, care must be taken while taking such action. In most developing countries, prosecution for tax matters is applied only in cases of serious tax frauds and not in general compliance matters,” Nangia said. The Budget announcement follows the recommendation of the task force on shell companies, which was set up in February last year. In the government’s fight against black money, shell companies have come to the fore as they are seen as potential for money laundering. Till the end of December 2017, over 2.26 lakh companies were deregistered by the MCA for various non-compliances and being inactive for long. Shell companies are characterised by nominal paid-up capital, high reserves and surplus on account of receipt of high share premium, investment in unlisted companies, no dividend income and high cash in hand. Also, private companies as majority shareholders, low turnover and operating income, nominal expenses, nominal statutory payments and stock in trade, minimum fixed asset are some of the other characteristics. Since last year, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) the apex policy making body of the I-T department has been sharing with the MCA specific information like PAN data of corporates, Income Tax returns (ITRs), audit reports and statement of financial transactions (SFT) received from banks.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Gail Abbas and Holly Pranger Recommended Again by WTR 1000
SAN FRANCISCO (PRWEB) February 12, 2018
Pranger Law PC is proud to announce its attorneys’ inclusion in the eighth edition of the 2018 WTR 1000 as “recommended experts” among the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.
Gail I Nevius Abbas is a partner at Pranger Law PC and has been selected for the third year in a row by WTR 1000.
Although adept on both sides of the contentious/non-contentious boundary, the “diligent and knowledgeable” Gail Abbas of Pranger Law PC is most renowned for her “strong prosecution practice”. “Clients are always pleased with the results she gets.”
Ms. Abbas has managed domestic and international portfolios consisting of as many as 5,000 trademarks for clients across diverse industries, including apparel, toys and education services, lawn and garden, health and fitness, food and beverage, vitamins and dietary supplements, payroll and other financial services, and computer software and hardware for the automotive, property and insurance industries.
Holly Pranger, Managing Partner of Pranger Law PC, once again been ranked as a leading trademark attorney in the world by WTR 1000.
Holly Pranger, “…dispenses wise counsel to businesses looking to defend and expand their brand image. She possesses rare expertise in the online and advertising spaces, including in sweepstakes matters, and is excellent all-around.”
Ms. Pranger helps companies build leading global trademark and copyright portfolios that have been valued at and acquired for billions of dollars. Well-versed in representing both emerging and well-known brands in complex intellectual property rights and advertising matters, she has an excellent command of all aspects of registering world-wide rights and developing and executing enforcement plans to police and protect those valuable assets.
The World Trademark Review 1000 (WTR 1000) is an annual ranking of the world’s top 1000 trademark professionals, out of at least 30,000 candidates, and is based strictly on merit. The list is comprised of peer and client recommendations over a four-month period with trademark specialists across the globe.
About Pranger Law PC
Pranger Law PC (Pranger) is a premier boutique law firm specializing in Intellectual Property and Advertising law services. Pranger handles all aspects of Trademark and Copyright law including search and clearance, global registration and portfolio management; watch, investigation and enforcement of rights, as well as responding to claims; all dispute proceedings before Trademark and Copyright Offices and litigation, mediation and arbitration over these claims among others such as patent and right of publicity claims; as well as all aspects of advertising & promotions law including legal counseling on running sweepstakes and contests, cause marketing, endorsements and general advertising issues. Pranger is made up of highly trained and skilled lawyers who focus on representing software, intelligent products, wearable technology, retail, food & beverage, restaurant & bars, artists, wine & spirits and anything else that we think is cool to wear, do, use or consume.
Established in 2004, Pranger has been providing legal counseling and representation in all aspects of intellectual property and advertising law to clients past and present of the firm such as Nike, Lyft, Victoria’s Secret, PINK, Henri Bendel, Bath & Body Works, Juicy Couture, Kate Spade, Lucky Brand, Ron Herman, Betabrand, Cabo Wabo Tequila (acquired by Campari/Skyy), Audatex and Solera (global leaders in vehicle software), Dropcam (acquired by Google Nest), Taskrabbit, Crunchbase, Bustle, Bleacher Report (acquired by Time Warner), Fab.com, Mailbox (acquired by Dropbox), 15Five, Uservoice, and several venture capital firms. More info at http://www.prangerlaw.com
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2018/02/prweb15190716.htm
Small business owners may want to hand out bonuses and raises now that there’s a new tax law, but many don’t know if they’ll have any wealth to share.
“We didn’t base any raises or bonuses on the tax situation because, quite frankly, until it actually happens, no one’s sure what’s going to happen,” says Rod Hughes, a vice president at Kimball Hughes Public Relations in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. The company gave its seven full-time employees year-end bonuses last month.
It’s easier for big companies like Walmart and Home Depot to award bonuses because they already know their top tax rate is dropping to 21 percent from 35 percent under the old law. Millions of small business owners have far less certainty.
The law provides for a break for the owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships and small businesses structured as what are called S corporations. But while they can deduct 20 percent of their business income, the size of the deduction declines when an individual owner’s taxable income reaches $157,500. And the IRS still needs to issue regulations on how these owners’ business income is calculated.
“The 20 percent deduction is extremely complex and it’s going to require a complete understanding of how the statute works,” says William Hornberger, an attorney with tax expertise at the firm Jackson Walker in Dallas.
Big companies also have an advantage because they have billions of dollars in cash reserves. Small and mid-size businesses often don’t have such cushions or access to big lines of credit that can help pay operating costs if revenue slows. Giving bonuses or raises in response to a potential tax cut could leave smaller companies vulnerable to a cash flow crisis.
Even when tax professionals have more clarity about the law, small and mid-sized companies are likely to hold off. Owners typically give raises at the end of the year or early in the new year, after they have assessed how employees and the company overall have performed. If owners have a sense of what their revenue and profits will be in the year ahead, that goes into the mix as well.
Mark Carpenter has consulted both of his accounting firms about the law, and gotten different opinions about its potential impact on his roofing company.
“We need to see how the rules change and if it allows us to raise wages,” says Carpenter, whose business, Columbia Roofing & Sheet Metal, is based in Tualatin, Oregon. He’s already given employees raises and bonuses based on the company’s performance, but needs to be careful with cash flow because the business is growing rapidly.
It’s not known exactly how many companies overall have awarded raises or bonuses based on the law. The most recent report on employee wages from payroll company ADP covers the fourth quarter of 2017 and doesn’t reflect the impact of the law. But the first-quarter report also may not reveal any trends because it won’t specify the factors that go into higher pay, spokeswoman Allyce Hackmann says.
Many business owners say they don’t base decisions, including raises and bonuses, primarily on how much money they might save on taxes. Small business advisers say they’ve been seeing their clients holding to that conservative approach since the law went on the books in December.
“The idea of giving more money to employees purely on speculation that you’re going to see more in your pocket, that’s counterintuitive,” says David Lewis, CEO of OperationsInc, a human resources provider based in Norwalk, Connecticut, whose clients are primarily small and mid-sized companies.
Rob Basso is seeing raises being awarded at the clients of his company, Advantage Payroll Services, but he’s not hearing that the tax cut is a factor.
“What they’re doing is sticking to the normal reasons for giving raises, like giving merit raises,” says Basso, whose company is based in Plainview, New York.
Steve Kalafer has given the 700 employees of his car dealerships bonuses of up to $500 because Flemington Car & Truck Country Family of Brands will benefit from the corporate tax cut. But any further bonuses, or raises, will depend on how many cars his dealerships sell.
“We don’t have a clear trend for the year,” says Kalafer, whose dealerships are located in Flemington, New Jersey.
It’s worth noting that many of the big corporations gave one-time bonuses, not permanent raises. So if the tax cut turns out to be less of a boon than expected, or the companies have a bad year, they’re not committed to higher compensation going forward.
But the prospect of a tax cut does help some owners feel more secure about increasing staffers’ pay. Tjernlund Products has given raises and bonuses, mindful of the need to recruit and retain talented workers in Minnesota’s tight labor market; the state’s unemployment rate is a full percentage point below the national rate of 4.1 percent.
Co-owner Andrew Tjernlund doesn’t know what taxes will be like for the company that manufactures fans and ventilation equipment. But he sees the law as an opportunity to be a more competitive employer.
“The tax cut allows us to invest more in our growing business,” he says. “In this low-unemployment environment, securing and rewarding our employees is the best use of this freed-up money.”
Hughes also believes tax savings can help his company in a tough labor market.
“The war for talent is only going to get harder as we go along,” he says.
WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Monday it has filed a complaint against the three largest U.S. dental supply companies, saying they had broken antitrust law.
The FTC said that Benco Dental Supply, Henry Schein Inc and Patterson Companies had conspired to refuse to serve or give discounts to dental buying groups. (Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Susan Thomas)
