There Should be No Special Deal for Tax-Evading Cameco

Cameco, the Saskatchewan-based uranium mining colossus, is currently in Federal Court facing charges by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it illegally avoided a stunning $2.2 billion in Canadian income taxes. It is not only the largest such case in Canadian history but one of the most shameless tax dodges ever hatched by a Canadian corporation. The court case has been delayed for years and just the fact that it has finally made it before a judge is good news. But the news could quickly turn bad if, facing defeat, Cameco makes a pitch to settle for less than the full amount. That would be a miscarriage of justice.

It is absolutely critical that the government not make a deal with Cameco for a smaller sum — as often happens in these cases. Because this is no ordinary case. Cameco is a rogue corporation, contemptuous of the country it operates in, and so arrogant in its tax avoidance scheme that it can’t even bother to try to justify it. Confronted by the facts, Cameco just repeats its executive mantra: “We believe that it was established in accordance with sound business principles and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.”

At a time when more and more attention is being paid to off-shore tax havens and the billions we lose to them, Canada needs to make an example of this irresponsible corporate “citizen.”

Here’s the bare bones of the scheme. In 1999 Cameco decided to dramatically reduce its income tax bill by setting up a subsidiary in Zug, Switzerland, where the tax rate is 10 per cent — compared to the (then) Canadian rate of about 27 per cent. At the time the price was at rock bottom — $10 a pound. That’s the price the Saskatchewan head office charged its Swiss “subsidiary.” Then came the windfall manoeuvre: Cameco drafted a 17-year uranium supply agreement at a fixed price of $10 a pound. It was simplicity itself: Cameco would sell literally all of its uranium through the Swiss subsidiary and it would sell it for whatever the world price was. That world price went to almost $140 a pound in 2007 and is now around $35. All the revenue earned above $10 a pound was taxed in Switzerland at the low rate. (An insignificant amount is actually sold in Europe and, of course, not an ounce of the stuff ever finds its way to Zug.)

This scheme is known as “transfer pricing” and sometimes it is perfectly legitimate — companies that sell their products in multiple countries “sell” them to subsidiaries which then sell them in their jurisdiction and get taxed on the profits. But more and more multinationals have been abusing the law that allows this — including Apple, “based” in Ireland, which is now facing a US$15-billion tax bill from the European Commission for its abuse of transfer pricing.

But Apple actually sold its products in European countries and has 5,500 employees in Ireland. Cameco? Not so much. According to a 2014 Globe and Mail story:

“While Cameco says Cameco Europe has its own board of directors and a full-time CEO, documents in the case reveal the European company had no other full-time employees, and no stand-alone office, instead renting space from the law firm performing its legal work.”

Virtually all the substantive work was performed in Canada.

All of the uranium is mined in Canada, all of Cameco’s sales are negotiated and completed in Canada, and literally all of its profits are generated in Canada. The company’s scheme is pure scam which is why fair-tax activists in Saskatchewan call the company Scameco. A citizens’ group, Saskatchewan Citizens for Tax Fairness, has been on Cameco’s case for several years — paying for a billboard demanding Cameco pay up and collecting 36,000 names on a petition which it presented to the federal government.

But it isn’t just citizens’ groups looking askance at Cameco. Investment research firms, like Veritas, have questioned the company’s scheme. In 2013 company analyst Pawel Rajszel stated:

“[A]ll the upside has been transferred to the subsidiary. Meanwhile all the risk has stayed with Cameco Canada. It’s strange that the company would have created this Swiss subsidiary without having any real operations in Switzerland.”

A Veritas report concludes: “It is therefore difficult to see a reasonable business purpose to [Cameco Europe’s] existence, beyond tax minimization.” In a further comment, Mr. Rajszel told The Globe and Mail in 2014: “Based on our review of Cameco’s [first quarter] results, the dispute with the CRA may force the company to borrow funds and/or cut its dividend in order to finance the back tax payments.” Does that suggest Cameco’s clever tax dodge could actually expose it to a charge of failing to carry out its fiduciary duty to its shareholders?

Another business-focussed group has been sniffing around Cameco’s problems. The Bottom Line, a Canadian publication which bills itself as a “Forensic Accounting and Fraud” magazine, has been in contact with Saskatchewan Citizens for Tax Fairness about the case.

Companies like Cameco have for too long framed the tax haven issue as business as usual. But that is now clearly changing and people are starting to see this behaviour for what it is: the legalized theft of Canadian government services. Cameco started off as a public mining company and its technology was developed in Canada with the help of Saskatchewan government money. The Canadian transportation infrastructure allows them to get their uranium to market, they have enjoyed decades in a stable economy, with low inflation, cheap money, low crime and the legal protection accorded a “corporate citizen” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their workers received free and/or subsidized education and Cameco doesn’t have to pay health insurance for its employees — as companies in the U.S. do. Adding insult to injury, the (federal) taxes Cameco is avoiding are amongst the lowest in the developed word: 15 per cent compared, for example, to 35 per cent in the U.S.

Ironically — or maybe not — while the CRA is going after Cameco, Saskatchewan’s unabashedly pro-business premier Brad Wall has said almost nothing about the case (the timid NDP opposition has said even less). That seems a bit strange given that Saskatchewan’s share of the proceeds, if the CRA wins, would be over $700 million. Governments may govern in the era of globalization, but giant companies rule. It is long past time that we put a stop to it. A great first step would be for the CRA to refuse to negotiate and get all of our money back. Then we need to change the law.

More articles by:

MURRAY DOBBIN, now living in Powell River, BC has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for over forty years.  He can be reached at murraydobbin@shaw.ca

Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography
Kathy Deacon
Me, My Parents and Red Scares Long Gone
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Rexless Abandon
Andrew Levine
Good Enemies Are Hard To Find: Therefore Worry
Jim Kavanagh
What to Expect From a Trump / Kim Summit
Ron Jacobs
Trump and His Tariffs
Joshua Frank
Drenched in Crude: It’s an Oil Free For All, But That’s Not a New Thing
Gary Leupp
What If There Was No Collusion?
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: Bernard Fall Dies on the Street Without Joy
Robert Fantina
Bad to Worse: Tillerson, Pompeo and Haspel
Brian Cloughley
Be Prepared, Iran, Because They Want to Destroy You
Richard Moser
What is Organizing?
Scott McLarty
Working Americans Need Independent Politics
Rohullah Naderi
American Gun Violence From an Afghan Perspective
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Why Trump’s Tariff Travesty Will Not Re-Industrialize the US
Ted Rall
Democrats Should Run on Impeachment
Robert Fisk
Will We Ever See Al Jazeera’s Investigation Into the Israel Lobby?
Kristine Mattis
Superunknown: Scientific Integrity Within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes
John W. Whitehead
Say No to “Hardening” the Schools with Zero Tolerance Policies and Gun-Toting Cops
Edward Hunt
UN: US Attack On Syrian Civilians Violated International Law
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Outside History
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Long Hard Road
Victor Grossman
Germany: New Faces, Old Policies
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
The Iraq Death Toll 15 Years After the US Invasion
Binoy Kampmark
Amazon’s Initiative: Digital Assistants, Home Surveillance and Data
Chuck Collins
Business Leaders Agree: Inequality Hurts The Bottom Line
Jill Richardson
What We Talk About When We Talk About “Free Trade”
Eric Lerner – Jay Arena
A Spark to a Wider Fire: Movement Against Immigrant Detention in New Jersey
Negin Owliaei
Teachers Deserve a Raise: Here’s How to Fund It
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
What to Do at the End of the World? Interview with Climate Crisis Activist, Kevin Hester
Kevin Proescholdt
Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke Attacks America’s Wilderness
Franklin Lamb
Syrian War Crimes Tribunals Around the Corner
Beth Porter
Clean Energy is Calling. Will Your Phone Company Answer?
George Ochenski
Zinke on the Hot Seat Again and Again
Lance Olsen
Somebody’s Going to Extremes
Robert Koehler
Breaking the Ice
Pepe Escobar
The Myth of a Neo-Imperial China
Graham Peebles
Time for Political Change and Unity in Ethiopia
Terry Simons
10 American Myths “Refutiated”*
Thomas Knapp
Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
Louis Proyect
The 2018 Socially Relevant Film Festival
David Yearsley
Keaton’s “The General” and the Pernicious Myths of the Heroic South