Dear Editor,

Through time we have sought destinations away from home for our leisure. In creating traditions, annual family vacations were often planned and enjoyed to bond, enhance the love for one another, and have joyful experiences. Experiences to last a lifetime. In fact, through such vacations, permitted exposure to other cultures and religions bringing a vast knowledge and experience that would permit us to better partake in the world.

Throughout our youth, many of us were rewarded with travel abroad after having completed a school year successfully. Travel was for a long time associated with pleasure, adventure, and mere enhancement of personal wellbeing.

Travel, however, is undertaken with greater frequency for business. Business growth and so economic development have been contingent on expansion of market opportunities exceeding borders. Whilst telecommunication now enables business to be undertaken anywhere any time, in a global environment this means of communication has not mitigated the importance of travel. So travel is done by means of vehicular transport (over continents having such connections), by train, ship or aircraft.

In an article written by Chris Isidore for CNN money, the many means of travel were compared based on the number of fatalities over a five-year period. It was established that a scale ranging from most dangerous to least dangerous was represented as follows: Motorcycles-cars and trucks-trains-metros/subways-busses-planes. One may assume that these figures were based on the fatalities caused during a crash of such transportation means. However, anno 2016 we should question if the fatalities which occur in and around airports, train stations and metro stations should be considered as fatalities related to the transportation means being sought.

Terrorism attacks have in a short period of time made most means of mass transportation to be the most dangerous means of transportation. The utilization of aircrafts, the bombing of metro stations and recent bombings in the departure hall of the Brussels airport are just some of the examples in which the use of certain transportation means are targeted, simply because of the greater number of people that are transported by such means at any given time.

For years we believed that travel by air or by train were by far the safest means of transportation; that believe is now rapidly dissipating. The use of such transportation means now may make us sitting ducks in an enclosed pond, highly vulnerable to malicious attacks. The open borders in Europe, once seen as the means to attain a European Union, a higher form of economic development through trade and free movement of people, may now be the cause of its vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

It is suggested that many more attacks are in the planning and probably execution phase, cautioning travel to Europe. Yet we have seen that acts of terrorism are not confined to any area, continent or country. In fact its non-discriminatory nature is the reason why no country can become complacent or deem itself not a target.

With that being said, would it be conceivable that travellers would find themselves playing Russian roulette with their lives every time travel by aircraft, train, metro or even by ship was ventured? That realization may have far-fetching consequences for destinations strongly dependent on tourism. How do we ensure that travel through these means remains the least dangerous means of transportation?

What is required to maintain safety and security so that travel not only for business, but for leisure continues? Has St. Maarten embarked on this journey to ensure that travel to the country remains a desired and safe option? World events as far away as they may seem, can have an impact on us, so it is essential that mechanisms are put in place in the country to aid in the fight against acts of terrorism. Compliance with FATF’s recommendations as set forth in the AML/CFT (Anti Money Laundering /Combating the financing of terrorism) standards is a step in the right direction.

Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Dear Editor,

During the recent budget deliberations in Parliament, the query on how higher tax compliance would be ensured was answered by the Minister of Finance along the lines that prompter action would be undertaken after one issued warrant of payment to the tax payer. This response seemed to satisfy the Member of Parliament (MP) who posted the question. This response, however, suggests that higher tax compliance will be sought from those tax payers who are already in the system and paying taxes.

These taxpayers are too often confronted with bogus assessments on supposed late payments, simply because the Receiver and the Tax Department do not have a synchronized system permitting the latter to instantaneously view the payments made by the receiver.

Almost on a monthly basis tax payers are forced to issue payment receipts, issued by the receiver, to the tax department in protest of a baseless warrant for payment (due to supposed non-payment or late payment) issued by the tax department. If this protest (sending a proof of payment from their own system back) is not filed the promised new actions may not be prevented.

Yes, at times the tax payer may not have paid enough and receives a warrant for additional payment. In such cases immediate real action to collect may be expected sooner, well soon after all legal remedies have been exhausted.

Yet, this promise of prompter action alone will not translate in enhanced tax compliance in the country, for it is not only those who are registered and paying taxes that are supposed to bring about a higher compliance. Is it not a fact that currently a small portion of society is carrying a far larger portion of not registered, non-tax paying entities? Enhanced tax compliance should coincide with the promise to broaden the tax payer base and to ensure that those who are operating outside of the system are introduced to the obligations others have fulfilled for years.

To highlight a few examples of entities that should be brought in to broaden the tax payer base:

*There are so many entities that enjoy a tax holiday without expiry date. The tax holiday was intended to permit a viable start-up to these businesses. Being in business for years now may be a reason to assume that the tax holiday may now be withdrawn and these businesses may now be included in the group of tax payers.

*Businesses, not registered or licensed, are offering products and services, generating revenues outside the system and having no contribution obligation as they are not known. The fact that these businesses are undermining our secure business environment is one consequence – that they are permitted to engage in unfair competition practices is another.

*Some individuals, who should be part of the tax payer group, simply abuse the dual tax system between Dutch and French St. Martin and ultimately do not contribute in any jurisdiction. These individuals declare at our tax department that they are declaring and paying on the French side and on the French side they declare to have a foreign income and are paying in a foreign territory. The Tax Department on the Dutch side seems to be satisfied with that declaration and undertakes nothing to verify with the French counterpart on this declaration and payment. So, many prominent and outstanding citizens misuse this dual tax system, generate an income and pay no one.

*Then there are the villa rentals conducted, through which revenues are generated in the island, yet it remains unclear if this income is taxed in any jurisdiction.

Is this not a tax compliance issue as well even if it can easily be qualified as tax evasion? Yet no one deals with these forms of tax evasion (permitted or not), and of course that is simply because these evaders are not known.

   The promised actions above can only help to enhance the tax compliance of the known tax payer who did not file or pay correctly when prosecuted for tax evasion. The real tax evaders look on, comment and criticize those “caught” for improper tax compliance.

The need for more revenues by the country should have placed a focus on this segment of society as well, instead of a continued focus only on those known and within easy reach.

Enhancement of tax compliance is therefore much more and should be much more than the promised action against the known tax payers. Enhancement of tax compliance should include all those businesses in operation under the radar and all those citizens who peddle between the Dutch and French side.

A simple declaration that you are declaring elsewhere should not be sufficient, this declaration should at least be supported by a copy of that foreign declaration filed. That is a start and not a costly one at that. We can only hope that tax compliance from all will be sought and not just from a few.

Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Dear Editor,

The law is an interesting concept. On paper it is supposed to protect the law abiding and honest from the wrongs and criminal acts of others. If it’s a criminal act then you call the police and they arrest the bad guy and the public prosecutor does his job and the evil doer is punished. If it’s a civil wrong then, ostensibly, you get yourself a lawyer who sues the other guy and a judge decides whether you are right or not and the problem is resolved. Great concepts all of them, and the foundation of civilized societies as we know them, but what do you do when your own government are the criminals?

By now everyone knows the story. GEBE, a government operated enterprise, through its management told everyone that asked that solar installations were fine, that there were no regulations defining them and that if production exceeded consumption “you won’t get a bill.” Crystal clear, no ambiguity. Based on this promise, lots of people spent a lot of money, and I mean LOTS of money into the strong five figure range, to install complex and technologically advanced solar systems and became energy independent. Well, and again as you already know, it turned out that GEBE was lying and as soon as they could figure out how to do it they installed meters that prevent energy storage. What this means is that an individual only gets benefit from his very expensive installation if production exceeds consumption at that precise moment in time over the course of the day and then ONLY what the consumption is. Any extra gets stolen by GEBE and resold to someone else at retail rates.

In the month of May, I produced 3,430KWH or roughly US $775 worth of electricity. My consumption was roughly 1000kwh or about $225 worth. On the face of it, a rational person might think that giving GEBE about $550 worth of electricity for free BEYOND what I used might be good enough… but no… they felt it necessary to not only steal the $550, but to bill me for an additional 400 plus KWH. I suppose the fact that they didn’t use a ski mask and a handgun might mean they didn’t actually steal it as we mere mortals understand the term. The lawyers like to call it “conversion.” That’s where someone sneaky and dishonest finds a way to take what’s yours and make it theirs without paying you for it in some way.

So off I went to the lawyers to sue them. Very interesting that exercise. First of all, finding a lawyer that wasn’t already on GEBE’s payroll was almost impossible. Seems GEBE has just about every lawyer in town tied up. Ultimately, I found one and some additional interesting information developed. It seems that beyond the $400 plus an hour it’s going to cost to sue them, you can’t just file a complaint and get in front of a judge for a response. It turns out that you have to “build a file” first. That means you write a bunch of letters and requests for information, each one of which in my case cost $1,500, which are either ignored or returned as stone-walled answers, Only after you have burned up maybe $10,000 in letter writing can you go to court and spend another $20,000 or $30,000 to get to a hearing. And the letter writing itself was very entertaining. The one I did commission was sent and formally requested, under some statute, a variety of documents including the GEBE concession that Government is supposedly obligated to supply, again, under statute.

The reply from government was particularly fascinating. They provided all the documents that said nothing at all and had no substance. They failed to supply the concession from which, I am pretty sure, could be determined that GEBE is acting illegally with this whole “stealing energy from solar producers” deal and ended the letter with an absolutely wonderful catch-all paragraph that I will summarize . It says: “please note and be advised that under statute xyx we are not obligated to give you ANY documents that might help you and hurt us when you sue us.” In effect it means “remember that statute that says we, as government, have to be open and honest with you? Forget it. We don’t have to tell you anything that might help you prove we are the criminals you think we are.

The lawyers just shrug their shoulders. At $400 an hour they are happy to write letters and stonewall each other until their clients are bankrupt. If you are the one getting screwed by GEBE it means that the truth of the matter is simply that you have no reasonable access to the courts. No one is going to spend $30,000 and fight this thing to the Hague to remedy a $200-per-month electricity bill. Government knows that and so does GEBE, and that’s why there is no “small claims “ court here where an individual can stand in front of a judge and plead his case because if there was then government and GEBE would spend its life in court getting hammered.

The great Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko who spent a career writing about the most corrupt city in America once wrote “You can’t fight City Hall.” Nowhere is that truer than here.

Steven Johnson

Dear Editor,
The St. Maarten Chamber of Commerce and Industry (COCI) is of the opinion that compliance with international standards applicable to commercial registries will not solely contribute towards a more secure business environment on St. Maarten, but will also contribute towards the country’s initiatives to combat money laundering and terrorism funding activities.
Compliance with Financial Action Taskforce (FATF) on Money Laundering international standards set in February 2012 (Anti Money Laundering/ Combating the financing of Terrorism AML/CFT standards) will be achieved if all within the country implement and execute measures that will aid hereto. Financial institutions, Insurance companies, Notaries and Lawyers have already commenced the implementation and execution of measures under the heading “Know your customer.” Share holder registers and Ultimate Beneficiary Ownership (UBO) records are already being maintained within the entities mentioned afore, yet a proper regulation and central registry hereon has not been provided for.
The Parliament of the European Union (EU) in its guideline of May 20, 2015, outlined the objective for its member states to have in place laws and administrative provisions through which the guideline requirements will be in effect by June 27, 2017. The guideline is formulated with due consideration of the FATF recommendations, and seeks to have a more structured and organized approach towards the combatting of money laundering, terrorism funding and organized crimes. The member states have committed themselves to have the appropriate laws and administrative provisions in place. Within the Kingdom, the Netherlands has currently on consultation a law amendment to the Chamber of Commerce Register law (Handelsregisterwet of 2007) and the Civil Code.
COCI Operations, having received unanimous support from its Board of Directors, has taken the stance that Country St. Maarten being part of the Kingdom must do its part. COCI shall have formulated law amendment proposals to be presented to the Government of St. Maarten later this year for its consideration. COCI shall conduct prior consultations with stakeholders to ensure input is incorporated in proposals to be presented to Government. COCI is of the opinion that we must be proactive and undertake initiatives that will underscore the country’s intent to be compliant with international standards and demonstrate its commitment to combat crimes that adversely affect the integrity, stability and credibility of the financial sector, and so the country.
COCI advocates that Country St. Maarten commits to adopt and have implemented the required supporting laws to enable a central registry with proper safeguards, to be maintained on shareholding and ultimate beneficiary ownership by June 2017. COCI will do its part and trusts that the Government will give due and timely considerations to its proposals, in the interest of St. Maarten.

Peggy-Ann Brandon
COCI President