The Company may not be able to supply gas to a customer in Hazira whose contract runs until mid-2016. The Company had previously planned to supply gas from the D6 Block to the customer. Due to a change in the gas allocation policy by the Government of India, the Company may not be able to fulfill the contract with gas supply from the D6 Block. The Company has notified the customer that the underperformance of reservoir is a force majeure event. The customer does not agree with this position and has served a notice of arbitration on the Company. The matter is sub judice in a court of law. The Company believes that the outcome is not determinable.
d. In a May 2012 letter, the GOI alleged that the joint venture partners in the D6 Block are in breach of the PSC for the D6 Block as they failed to drill all of the wells and attain production levels contemplated in the Addendum to the Initial Development Plan for the Dhirubhai 1 and 3 fields. The GOI has further asserted that joint venture costs totaling $1.462 billion (the Company's share totaling $146.2 million) are therefore disallowed for cost recovery. The joint venture partners are of the view that the disallowance of recovery of costs incurred by the joint venture has no basis in the terms of the PSC and that there are strong grounds to challenge the action of the GOI. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Reliance) has commenced arbitration proceedings against the GOI challenging the allegations and the disallowance of cost recovery on behalf of the partners. To the extent that any amount of joint venture costs are disallowed, such amount would be treated as profit petroleum in the future, a portion of which would be payable to the GOI under the PSC. Because profit petroleum percentages for the joint venture partners and the GOI change as the joint venture partners recover specified percentages of their investments, the potential impact on the Company's future profit petroleum expense (which represents the GOI's share of profit petroleum) is dependent on the future revenue and expenditures in the block and cannot be precisely determined at this time. The arbitral tribunal is in the process of being constituted with Reliance and the GOI having nominated two of the three arbitrators. The outcome of these proceedings is not determinable at March 31, 2013.
e. The Company has filed its income tax returns in India for the taxation years 1998 through 2008 under provisions that provide for a tax holiday deduction for eligible undertakings related to the Hazira and Surat fields.
The Company has received unfavorable tax assessments related to taxation years 1998 through 2008. The assessments contend that the Company is not eligible for the requested tax holiday because: a) the holiday only applies to "mineral oil" which excludes natural gas; and/or b) the Company has inappropriately defined undertakings. The taxation years 2009 and later have not yet been assessed by the tax authorities. The Company has appealed the tax assessments and has received favorable rulings at the second level of four possible levels of appeals, the Tribunal Court. This decision has been appealed by the Indian tax department to the third level of appeals, the High Court. The fourth level of appeals is the Supreme Court.
In August 2009, the Government of India through the Finance (No.2) Act 2009 amended the tax holiday provisions in the Income Tax Act (Act). The amended Act provides that the blocks licensed under the NELP-VIII round of bidding and starting commercial production on or after April 1, 2009 are eligible for the tax holiday on production of natural gas. However, the budget did not address the issue of whether the tax holiday is applicable to natural gas production from blocks that have been awarded under previous rounds of bidding, which includes all of the Company's Indian blocks. The Company has previously filed and recorded its income taxes on the basis that natural gas will be eligible for the tax holiday.
With respect to undertakings eligible for the tax holiday deduction, the Act was amended to include an "explanation" on how to determine undertakings. The Act now states that all blocks licensed under a single contract shall be treated as a single undertaking. The Company was granted an interim relief by the High Court on instructing the tax Department to not give effect to the "explanation" referred to above retrospectively until the matter is clarified in the courts.
The decision regarding retrospective application of the definition of undertaking and whether or not mineral oil includes natural gas for purposes of tax holiday claim is currently pending with the High Court.
Based on the circumstances described above, the Company continued to calculate its income tax provision in accordance with its earlier practice of treating a single well / cluster of wells as a single undertaking and considering the production of natural gas as eligible for the tax holiday claim. However, to avoid interest and penalties, the Company post amendment of the Income tax act has paid its income tax excluding the tax holiday deduction and has filed its income tax return without tax holiday deduction so as not deemed to be in violation of the current legislation.
Should the High Court overturn the rulings previously awarded in favour of the Company by the Tribunal court, and the Company either decides not to appeal to the Supreme Court or appeals to the Supreme Court and is unsuccessful, the Company would have to accordingly change its tax position and record a tax expense of approximately $59 million (comprised of additional taxes of $36 million and write off of approximately $23 million of the net income tax receivable). In addition, the Company could be obligated to pay interest on taxes for the past periods.
f. The Cauvery and D4 Blocks in India are under relinquishment. The Company believes it has fulfilled all commitments for the Cauvery block while the Government of India contends that the Company has unfulfilled commitments of up to approximately $2 million. The Company believes the outcome is currently not determinable.
g. Various lawsuits have been filed against the Company for incidents arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the outcome of the lawsuits, now pending, is not determinable or not material to the Company's operations. Should any loss result from the resolution of these claims, such loss will be charged to operations in the year of resolution.
Niko Resources Ltd.
Edward S. Sampson
Chairman of the Board, President & CEO
Niko Resources Ltd.
VP Finance & CFO
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Potential Snags to the Bipartisan Budget Deal
- Adam Levine Wins Big as 'The Voice' Crowns Champ
- Archer Daniels Midland Moving HQ to Chicago
- From Fiscal Cliff to Female Head of GM: 2013 in Review
- Budget Deal on Brink of Passing in Senate
- U.S. Home Construction Hammers Out 5-Year High
- Broadband Policies Could Mean 11,000 Jobs
- Senate Sends Bipartisan Budget Plan to President
- William Morris Endeavor Eats up IMG
- Wine Collector Convicted of Making Fake Vintages