Had this been a private business and had I been its tax advisor, travel expenses incurred in respect of wives, children and ladies-in-waiting would not be considered as a business expense, given that these are not expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in the production of income.

In the case of government, personal trips should either be at the expense of the person in question or if these expenses are in fact paid for by the state, then the respective minister or prime minister should be taxed on the benefit that is being afforded to him.

This however may not seem to be the case aboard our ship of state, where some animals are clearly more equal than others and where our tax compliance unit, simply turns a blind face (eye) knowing that should any officer within the department raising these issues, he will probably have his head served on a plate (even if this is solely a transfer notice!)

Well, Kermit Lewis can always be the tour leader at Disney World Resort. Pity Sigg Luna will not be going.

The usual sequito will be in attendance.

A visit to Disney World Resort is de rigueur.

Ahleb Dward.

1. Argument made by Minister Konrad Mizzi in a press conference on Sunday 13 October 2013 and reported by one section of the media:

“Price of energy to be announced later on

Dr Mizzi said that the price at which the consortium will sell electricity to Enemalta will be announced later on, after the appeals period closes. However he insisted that the rates were very advantageous. The contract will be signed as soon as the consortium gets hold of the required finances.”

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-10-13/news/announcement-on-delimara-power-station-preferred-bidder-imminent-2872508420/

2. Statement made by Gasol plc, through Equity Development – a UK independent investment research company – on a document published on Gasol’s website on 14 October 2013 but later withdrawn. Gasol is a listed company on the London Stock Exchange Aim and therefore declarations like these carry a lot of weight:

“The concession will be on a build-own-operate-transfer (‘BOOT’) basis, over an 18 year life. There are three essential elements to this:

– Provision of a Floating Storage Unit (‘FSU’).
– Development and operation of a 200MW independent power producer (‘IPP’).
– Supply of gas.

The first of these is covered by the preferred bidder status, as is part of the second. In simple terms, Electrogas commits to provision of the FSU and build of the power plant, and is guaranteed return of capex whether or not the plant is ever used or gas supplied – an unlikely event. The remainder is subject to detailed negotiation prior to final completion of the concession.

Anticipated cost is €370m, which is expected to be financed approximately 80% by debt and 20% by equity. The banks mandated by the consortium are BNP Paribas, HSBC, the German state-owned KfW and Bank of Valletta.”

Questions:

1. Has the price of the supply of power to Enemalta by Electrogas been finalised and is “very advantageous,” or is it still “subject to detailed negotiation prior to final completion of the concession”?

2. Is the consortium still to “get hold” of “the required finances,” and this is holding the signing of the contract, or has the consortium already “mandated” “BNP Paribas, HSBC, the German state-owned KfW and Bank of Valletta” to provide the 80% of finance?

So, is the contract awaiting the consortium to “get hold” of “the required finances,” or is the contract awaiting “detailed negotiation” about the supply of gas?