|
New
Zealand-born Australian tobacco executive Jeremy Flint,
general manager of British American Tobacco (BAT)
Philippines has quit smoking and has abstained from the
habit the past five months or so.
He vows
not to touch the stuff ever again and promises to keep
clean from now on. The first time the BusinessMirror met
Flint
about a month earlier at his Citibank Tower offices in
Makati, there were at least two ashtrays lying around,
empty.
Back then
Flint was busy parrying questions about his company
allegedly getting preferential tax treatment from the
government and that precious little revenues escaped the
tax net as a result.
He is hurt
that such are charged against a business that consciously
makes the effort to be transparent and aboveboard at all
times.
BAT’s
operations in the Philippines is just a fraction of the 85
billion cigarette sticks produced locally in a year and,
already, Flint’s million-a-year production commitment has
earned the ire of all six of his competitors.
All six
want his Pall Mall brand taxed at the highest possible
rate of P26.06 a pack, and all have written letters of
protest to the Department of Finance (DOF) saying the
government lost revenue money when it agreed to classify
the brand at the midprice range rather than at maximum.
“We’re a
small brand representing only a small portion of the
market while our six competitors have more than 85
percent,” Flint says, bewildered by the hostility.
He claims
competitors falsely accused his company of unduly
influencing the DOF into giving the Pall Mall brand
preferential excise tax treatment of just P6.74 a pack.
“We have
always behaved ethically and have followed the laws of the
Philippines in all our business transactions. We only want
to be able to compete on price, not on government
protection,” he says.
Free
competition
It amazes
Flint, a journalist in Australia prior to joining the
tobacco industry, that some would actually seek to thrive
under protective government cover.
If it were
all up to him, he says some of the provisions of Republic
Act 8240, or the Tax Reform Act of 1997, will be removed
and allow the domestic tobacco industry to compete on even
terms.
“I believe
the
Philippines
is a strong supporter of free competition. We at the
British American Tobacco feel strongly about the playing
field where everyone competes on even terms as good for
the Philippines,” he says.
His
problems with the Pall Mall brand, however, have made him
pensive.
He recalls
that
New Zealand
in the 1980s used to have only one airline, and this state
of affairs made its owners haughty and their staff rather
inconsiderate of passenger needs.
Airline
food and service were terrible until the New Zealand
government allowed the entry of competitors.
“Within
six weeks the food and the service substantially
improved,” he says.
It would
be a sad day in the
Philippines
should one competitor fall by the wayside simply because
the others want to keep their competitive edge and would
not want the small players to make matters harder, he
adds.
“The
existing players don’t want competition,” Flint says.
His
deepest wish is for government to stand up for greater
competition, not less of it.
“I can
understand why the competition does not want more, but I
hope the Philippine government doesn’t stand for less,” he
says.
Retirement
plans
The former
journalist from
Melbourne
also calls the Philippines his new home, having lived with
a Filipina in recent years.
Flint holds a lifetime Philippine resident visa and has
maintained a holiday house in Tagaytay Highlands where he
goes to on most weekends.
He plays
golf there as both exercise and recreation and he loves to
dive, especially in Anilao, Batangas, which is practically
just a stone’s throw away.
He finds
Filipinos generally friendly, and he says he finds “a
sense of progress in the Philippines” no matter that his
competitors want to ease him out of the market the soonest
they possibly could.
Then from
his back pocket he took out his wallet and showed his
daughter Abigail, 12 years old, by a previous marriage.
She’s
pretty like her mother, and he obviously dotes on her.
Flint says he comes and visits her regularly in
Melbourne
and vows to come to the Philippines with her four times a
year when he retires.
“I would
probably spend half of my retirement here in the
Philippines when it comes. I like it here very much,” he
says.
Then he
switches back to the
Pall Mall case again, its problems never far from his mind.
“We have
done everything in a legal manner, and I believe we always
behaved in an ethical manner,”
Flint reiterates.
Controversial decision
His
competitors, however, do not seem convinced and have
collectively made their thoughts known in letters of
protest to Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) chief Lilian Hefti and Finance
Undersecretary Gaudencio Mendoza.
Mendoza
signed the controversial decision reversing the 11th-hour
decision of former BIR chief Jose Mario Buñag classifying
Flint’s
Pall Mall as premium products deserving of the highest possible excise
of P26.06 per pack.
Buñag has
insisted he acted within the bounds prescribed by law and
stands by his claim the government stands to lose P93
million a year from foregone excise tax as a result.
The former
revenue chief also claimed it was illegal for the DOF to
reverse his February 22, 2007, ruling and made so much
noise the legislature cannot help but notice the
commotion.
But as far
as Flint is concerned, it bothers him to think that Pall
Mall is sold, excise tax included, only at P14 per pack
while the direct competing brands Hope and Winston sell
for P23 a pack, and yet it was his brand that got
clobbered at the recent Senate committee hearing when they
all pay excise of P6.74 per pack.
Flint reiterates that no preferential treatment was given to
the BAT and its
Pall Mall brand.
“The Pall
Mall classification is consistent with the classification
of other leading tobacco brands,” he would later say in
full-page newspaper ads to correct what he felt were
misimpressions they allegedly got preferential tax
treatment.
Flint flatly denies the allegations, pointing out that its
local licensee, La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory,
always paid the then-excise rate of P5.60 per pack, now
P6.74, since the
Pall Mall
brand was introduced in August 2004.
The law
says a price validation and revalidation process must be
observed when determining the excise-tax classification of
all cigarette brands in the country, a necessary process
either denying or corroborating the manufacturer’s stated
net retail price, a key determinant of the excise-tax
rate.
Midpriced
brand
Being a
midpriced brand at the time of its introduction, Pall Mall
paid the appropriate excise ever since.
Under the
law, the price survey must be conducted within three
months of introduction followed by a second price survey
18 months later.
No such
surveys were conducted by the BIR within the prescribed
periods despite repeated requests, and in such cases, the
law may accept the manufacturer’s stated price for
purposes of taxation.
On this
basis alone, Pall Mall should have been granted its final
excise-tax classification as a midprice brand at a
resultant excise rate of P6.74 per pack, the BAT said in a
paid newspaper advertisement.
The BAT
and its local partner La Suerte continued paying excise at
this rate until Buñag made the controversial order
classifying Pall Mall as a premium brand deserving the
highest rate of P26.06 per pack rather than as a mid-price
product in February.
Flint notes the BIR finally conducted its own price survey
28 months after
Pall Mall’s introduction to the market, and this same survey that BIR chief Buñag
authorized confirmed the brand’s classification as a
midprice product.
Finance
Undersecretary Mendoza would later be dumbfounded when
Buñag conveniently forgot this same survey that confirmed
the status of Pall Mall as a midprice brand when on
February 22 this year he issued an order reversing his own
findings and put not just the BAT but his former
colleagues at the DOF in a bad light for supposedly and
illegally downgrading the tax classification of the Pall
Mall brand.
Flint recalls they hired independent market researcher AC
Nielsen to conduct a survey parallel that also validated
their claim that
Pall Mall
was being sold at P14 per pack.
“Disregarding the results of his own survey, former
commissioner Buñag issued on February 22, 2007, a ruling
classifying
Pall Mall at the premium segment with an applicable tax rate of P26.0 per pack,
almost twice
Pall
Mall’s retail price of P14 per pack,” the BAT said in the
paid newspaper ad.
Buñag said
the basis for classifying the product at the premium
bracket was the price at which Pall Mall was sold at
duty-free stores when they imported and sold the brand
starting December 2004, or five months after its
introduction in the market.
Flint finds it funny that a third-party lawyer, Mike Baron,
urged then-BIR chief Buñag in a letter to classify the
brand at the highest excise segment.
Flint maintains Buñag’s 11th-hour decision classifying
Pall Mall as premium instead of midprice “unfairly raised
the tax classification of the brand,” and this was the
reason they successfully appealed to the DOF and had the
excise rate finally determined at only P6.74 per pack.
“The
excise rate of P6.74 per pack is legal on two grounds. It
is the automatic classification of
Pall Mall when the BIR failed to conduct the required validation and revalidation
process within the prescribed period. More important, it
is based on the results of the price survey which
confirmed that
Pall Mall
should be classified as a midprice brand,” the
manufacturers insist in the paid ad.
Flint maintains there was never a final classification of
the brand until the DOF ruling and that, therefore, they
cannot be accused of engineering a downward
reclassification prohibited by law.
Flint finds his competitors simply hostile as they all want
Pall Mall to pay the premium excise of P26.06 when none of
the existing brands pay tax at this level.
He notes
all locally manufactured brands are either value-for-money
brands paying excise of P2.23 per pack, midprice brands
paying P6.74 per pack or high-price brands paying no more
than P10.88 per pack.
Had
Buñag’s findings not been reversed,
Pall Mall would be the only locally manufactured brand that will pay
the premium rate of P26.06 per pack,
Flint
says.
Dim
outlook
FLINT once remarked the long-term outlook of the local
cigarette industry has dimmed, mainly because they have
become one of the most heavily regulated industries not
just in the
Philippines but everywhere else.
For
instance, cigarette manufacturers are not allowed to
openly display their products in
Thailand,
and retailers resort to selling them “always behind
something.”
Singapore,
which encourages them to make the island-state their hub
of operations and invest there, does not allow them to
market openly, as well. The same goes for India, where
regulators encourage the open flow of foreign investments
such as that from the cigarette manufacturers, but close
their ears to the open and public display of their wares.
“As long
as the
Philippines
allows free competition and continues to impose fair
excise tax for everyone, we will maintain our presence,”
Flint says.
He vows
support for even higher excise tax for their products as
long as everyone else pays the same.
He also
says increasing the tax on the bottom segment of the
industry should raise a significant amount of revenues for
government that it could use to offset spending on
cigarette-related ailments among Filipinos.
“But that
is government policy they alone determine,” he says.
|