As the new Congress will officially convene in late July
this year, various sectors and government agencies are preparing their
respective “legislative agenda”, the things they want Congress to enact for
their sector. And among the sectors seeking a new law is the mining sector,
about the proposed new mining tax regime.
The move now is to replace the (a) corporate income tax,
30 percent of net revenues, (b) excise tax, two percent of minerals value, (c)
royalty tax to indigenous people, five percent, plus several others, with a 10
percent gross revenue tax.
It is not clear though what to do with these taxes imposed on companies, most likely they will be retained: capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, value added tax, tax on interest income and payment, vehicle registration tax, real property tax, community tax. And the various regulatory fees -- occupational fee, business permit fees, registration fee, etc.
This 10 percent tax seems big as there are many other costs to consider, like (a)
labor wages, benefits and social insurance, (b) mandatory community
projects/CSR, (c) capex and machinery, trucks depreciation, (d) insurance
against natural accidents (heavy flooding, landslides) and man-made terror (NPA
attacks, other armed groups), (e) various maintenance and operating expenses
(fuel for trucks, electricity and equipment for offices, etc.), (f) mining rehabilitation
and reforestation of mined out areas, (g) other taxes and regulatory fees by
local and national government units.
However, if this looks big for government, then it will
have few reasons to further bureaucratize and delay the entry of new investors
and continued operation of existing investors. Thus, in cases where a municipal
or provincial government will order the cessation of operation of a big mining
company for whatever reason, the national government through the DENR-MGB and
DOF-BIR will overrule the LGUs so that the national government can continue
collecting high taxes.
The advantage here is that things should be made simpler
and more transparent. It is up to the metallic mining companies to cut costs
somewhere, like getting more fuel-efficient trucks and bulldozers, so that a
reasonable or attractive profit can be realized for the various investors and
shareholders of the companies.
Real debates will occur in Congress, in various Committee hearings, as the hardline "No mining whatsoever" and "Allow mining but over-tax and over-bureaucratize it" groups will mix with the more realistic groups.
There were several news reports recently on the proposed
new mining taxation policy in the country. I saw these four stories from the Philippine Star, BusinessWorld, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and Mining.Com.

(1) From the Philippine Star, May 3, 2013,
Environment Secretary Ramon Paje, who co-chairs the MICC,
told reporters yesterday that the draft bill prepared by MICC stipulates a
government share of seven to 10 percent to be obtained from gross earnings and
windfall earnings of mining firms.
The enlarged government share from mining revenues would
replace the two percent excise tax as well as other taxes imposed on mining
firms such as corporate income tax, customs duties and fees on imported capital
equipment among others.
Paje said that of the proposed range of government share
from mining revenues, the bulk should ideally come from gross revenues so that
the government would have a guaranteed income should the company not have
windfall earnings.
“If we use the 10 percent sharing scheme, for instance,
we can get seven percent from the gross and we have already achieved our
objective. The three percent can come from windfall income. Whatever percentage
we use we are more inclined on the gross,” he said.
He said that using this revenue sharing scheme, the
government could reap P10 billion annually from the current average of P800
million annually.
If Sagittarius Mine Inc.’s $5.9 billion copper-gold
project in South Cotabato commences operations, annual revenues from the mining
industry could reach P18 billion.
(2) From BusinessWorld, May 27, 2013
Mr. Paje said the MICC wanted a single, simplified regime
applicable to all types of mining agreements, adding that whether or not this
will be retroactive depends on Congress.