You are on page 1of 16

MULTINATIONALS ARE NOTORIOUS FOR TAX EVASION. DO YOU AGREE?

Introduction In order to understand the depth of this discourse which is to confirm or dispel the assertion that multinational companies are notorious for tax evasion it is pertinent to understand the fundamental or basic concepts with regard to what the essence of a multinational company is all about, to determine whether the governance structure of its host countries that fosters the perpetration of such acts; the imperative of taxation as it is obtainable for such corporations and the veracity of the assertion that there is a deliberate recourse to tax evasion by identifying specific instances of tax evasion. This paper is therefore broken down into several sections: What is a multinational company? What is tax evasion? How does the governance structure foster such practice? Examples of tax evasion in Nigeria, analysis of the current situation and it concludes with a summary of the discourse.

What is a multinational company? The acceleration and intensification of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and government of different nations as we see today is an integral part of the course of human history. This exponential growth in various activities and aspirations with increasing integration of the global human community has the role of Multinational corporations as one of its key drivers which have in recent decades come into full view with all its benefits and destructive power.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) which are interchangeably referred to as Multinational Enterprises (MNEs), Transnational Corporations (TNCs), and Transnational Enterprises (TNEs), is an enterprise that engages in foreign direct investment and that owns or controls value-added activities in more than one country.1 There are a number of ways of assessing

the degree of multinationality of a specific firm. For example, firms are considered to be multinational if first, they have foreign affiliates or subsidiaries in more than one foreign country; second, they operate in a wide variety of countries around the globe; third, the proportion of assets, revenues, or profits accounted for by overseas operations relative to total assets, revenues, or profits is high; fourth, their employees, stockholders, owners, and managers are from many different countries; and lastly, their overseas operations are much more ambitious than just sales offices, including a full range of manufacturing and research and development activities.2

In, 1994, for example, there were 37,000 multinational parent firms controlling over 200,000 foreign affiliates. By 2006, there were 78,000 MNCs with 780,000 overseas affiliates. Multinational corporations are among the worlds largest firms. In 2006, the top 50 multinationals had revenues of over $80 billion. The revenues of each of the top ten multinational corporations in 2006 were over $168 billion, more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of at least 140 countries.3

The governance structure of countries

It is pertinent to clarify that tax evasion and avoidance practices are not the prerogative of developing countries, but are also encountered in developed economies; and huge sums of money are lost to government coffers by such practices. However, it is the contention of this study that the challenge of tax evasion and avoidance is much more prevalent in developing countries because of the lack of good governance which allows the multinationals to often outsmart them. The governance structure comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. This governance structure is in

the area of economic, political and administrative. Economic governance includes decisionmaking processes that affect a country's economic activities and its relationships with other economies. It clearly has major implications for equity, social justice and enhancement of the quality of life. Political governance is the process of decision-making to formulate policy and the ability or will to enforce such policies. Administrative governance is the system of policy implementation which is prone and vulnerable to manipulation.4

With the developed countries having all the above structure and the will for enforceability of its policies and laws there still is the preponderance of tax evasion. The quest for profit maximization compels the multinational to engage in this nefarious activity despite the fact that almost all them originate from the developed countries. The issue of tax evasion is in the front burner in these countries as they continuously witness a down turn in their tax income from the multinational corporations. The developing countries strive to attract foreign direct investments (FDI) hoping that knowledge brought in by MNCs will spill over to domestic industries and increase their productivity. These direct gains can be higher real wages, lower prices or higher taxes. In contrast, however, the governance structure of these countries makes it easy for multinational corporations with little or no regard for the social and economic well-being of the countries in which they operate, are forcing local firms out of business, rather than forcing them to become more efficient. This challenge of tax evasion though a global trend is much more prevalent in developing countries where the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels is very poor. They tend to have economies dependent on the developed countries and are generally characterized as poor with unstable governments and having high rates of population growth, illiteracy, disease and also the prevalence of very large foreign debt.5

From the above analysis, apart from being wealthier than some countries put together, the domestic financial markets in these countries have not been developed and do not have appropriate laws in place to enable domestic financial institutions to stand up to foreign competition. The administrative setup, judicial systems, and law-enforcing agencies generally cannot guarantee the social discipline and political stability that are necessary in order to support a growth-friendly atmosphere. In the apparent absence of good governance, the possibilities of unethical conduct, the prevalence of poverty, availability of abundant natural resources and cheap labour have made western multinationals to consider the African continent as the last frontier for investment among the emerging markets in the world and a veritable area for foreign direct investment. This absence of credible governance structure and effective competition, have led Multinational corporations to operate with impunity in many Third World countries.

What is tax evasion? The problem of tax avoidance and evasion is one of the greatest problems confronting most countries of the world. There has been a silent agreement from many quarters that there is a tax gap between the actual tax collected and potential tax collections and this seems to be a problem that every tax system faces.

Taxation is defined here as the process by which government compulsorily transfers resources from private to public sector.6 or rather taxation is a system used by governments to obtain money from people and organizations.7 On the other hand tax evasion can be defined as contravention of the tax law whereby a person who derives a taxable income either pays no tax or pays less tax than he would otherwise be bound to pay. Tax evasion also includes the failure to make a return of taxable income or the failure to disclose in a return the

true amount of income derived. The definition presented by the Canadian Department of National Revenue, is quite comprehensive and all encompassing, it states that tax evasion is the commission or omission of an act knowingly with intent to deceive so that the tax reported by the taxpayer is less than the tax payable under the law, or a conspiracy to commit such an offence. This may be accomplished by the deliberate omission of revenue, the fraudulent claiming of expenses or allowances, and the deliberate misrepresentation, concealment or withholding of material facts.8

It is apt at this point to delineate the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion which for all intent and purposes have a thin line demarcating both terms. Tax avoidance involves the use of non-criminal modes of conduct by taxpayers in order to minimise or avoid tax liability. According to Komisar, the use of the term avoid rather than evade is a legal nicety which occurs when the wealthy and powerful use their power to legalise the nonpayment of taxes and to constrain the enforcement agencies from conducting justifiable investigation and prosecution. Simply put tax avoidance is the art of dodging tax without actually breaking the law.9Tax avoidance is legal while tax evasion is illegal, though there are those who argue against this simplification because of they feel that it is ethically wrong. By and large, the consequences of corporate tax avoidance and evasion are the same: fewer contributions from business and a larger burden on workers and consumers, or just less government funds to run states on.

Types of tax evasion There are several reported methods of tax evasion which include tax minimisation strategies ranging from transfer pricing to the creation of special purpose vehicles or nominal transfer of headquarters to tax havens; under-reporting; bribery of tax officials; refusal to pay; lobbying

of governments to reduce tax liability or effective incidence of tax system; lobbying by multinationals of home country governments to pressure host country governments to the same effect; or lobbying via international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO) to achieve similar effects.

Others include: non registration for taxes; refusal to file returns; refusal to pay assessed taxes; over/under invoicing; fictitious loans; understatement of activities; claim of fictitious expenses and assets; under-declaration of income; non remittance of WHT and VAT deducted at source; late remittance of WHT & VAT; deliberate claiming of tax credits to which claimant know they were not entitled; suppression of turnover; inflation of expenses higher than normal; concealment of offshore businesses and income; reporting non existent assets to claim capital allowances; intentional failure to deduct or withhold tax from payments to contractors/suppliers, etc; deliberate refusal of banks to remit tax funds to central bank on one flimsy excuse or the other; falsification of security documents such as tax clearance certificate, tax receipts, withholding tax credit notes, official stamps, VAT certificates, etc;10

Tax evasion and avoidance have been taken to its extreme by the steadily growing number of tax havens. Their low taxes and thin financial regulatory regimes attract not only wealthy individuals but also multinational corporations that use them as shelters from corporate taxation. There are at least 73 countries and territories that fit the classification of a tax haven and half of them have been established within the last 25 years. Out of which 47 are in developed countries in Europe, America and the Caribbean, and 39 are British dependencies or protectorates. They are sovereign states, colonial territories and parts of sovereign states that enjoy partial autonomy. As the raison detre of tax havens is their secrecy, it is hard to estimate the scale of tax income lost due to them. One study showed that the taxes not paid

on the returns made on such funds amounted to more than US$ 250 billion a year.11Another study set a conservative estimate of the revenue losses due to tax havens for developing countries at US$ 50 billion annually the equivalent of the annual aid flows to these countries or six times the estimated annual costs of achieving universal primary education.12

The challenges combating tax evasion in Nigeria include absence of a national data base and the ineffectiveness of the PIN number which was supposed to serve as a taxpayer identification number; inadequate tax education; advancement in technology and globalization; cash based Nigerian economy; poor record keeping, underground economy; sophistication in tax planning schemes especially among the Multinational companies, etc.

Examples of tax evasion The fight against tax evasion is one of the great challenges of fiscal management especially in Nigeria where there are several instances where the multinationals deliberately defy the authorities request for appropriate taxes. The specific samples are drawn from the extensive work done by scholars and reports in this regard. Multinational oil companies in Nigeria have been investigated and prosecuted for non-compliance with accounting standards and frauds and tax evasion and the evidence of the above predatory enterprise culture of multinational oil companies in Nigeria and some other multinational companies operating abound in the country. There are several cases involving Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), the largest oil producing company in Nigeria, which has been referred to as a Veritable State in the State of Nigeria.13Its exploration arm SNEPCo, was investigated in 2006, by the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum Resources and found to have collaborated with the then Nigerian Minister of State for Petroleum, Edmund Daukoru, to

violate the Nigerian laws and regulations by defrauding Nigerians a total sum of $3.2billion tax underpayment14

A report of the committee set up by the government of Nigeria in late 2007, to determine whether any revenue opportunities have been lost by Nigeria in the implementation of the Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) for the two deep-offshore oil fields at Bonga and Erha, also implicated the second largest producer of oil in Nigeria, Exxon Mobil Nigeria in huge tax avoidance According to the report submitted to the President of Nigeria, Mobil is to immediately pay about US$1billion to the coffers of the Nigerian Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).15

Akwa Ibom State government instituted legal action against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited and five of its executive directors over tax evasion on October 31, 2006 in suit No. REU/2959/2006. The action was filed against Mobil Producing in the States Revenue Court, accusing Mobil of evading payment of taxes totalling more than N4.1billion (US$27,123,076). In the suit filed before a revenue court in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, and presided over by Magistrate Benet Ilalumo, Mobil was accused of withholding from the state government income tax from 1998 to 2003. The offence, according to the charge, was punishable under Section 86(1) of the Personal Income Tax Act of 1993. Amongst other things, the defendants were alleged to have made incorrect returns with wrong information on the incomes of their workers from 1998 to 2003, thereby contravening Section 87 of the Act.16 In a related case it was reported that Chevron Nigeria Limited, has been indicted for tax evasion and the mainstream news media compromised the ethics of the press by not publishing the scandalous impunity of Chevron and other multinational oil companies in

Nigeria.17 It was one of the most complex and sinister webs of corporate deception and the exploitation of a joint venture scheme and related tax law was spelled out in an allegation filed in August 2004 by the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of Nigeria against Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL) and its associated companies. The allegation related to the use of petroleum profit accounting technology (such as fictitious qualifying capital expenditure, reserve additional bonus (RAB), and intangible drilling costs (IDC)) to avoid the payments of petroleum profit tax (PPT) payable in Nigeria. When the allegations of antisocial tax practices were made against CNL, ABZ Integrated Ltd. (a firm of chartered accountants and tax practitioners) was appointed as consultant to the EFCC to investigate CNLs involvement in the alleged tax evasion schemes. The examination of CNLs books and records by ABZ Integrated Ltd., revealed that CNL had evaded approximately $2.7 billion in tax (by way of designated tax evasion schemes and the manipulation of accounts) leading to accumulated penalties of $8.1 billion.17 The House Committee on Petroleum Resources (HCPR) therefore concluded that CNL had claimed unmerited tax credits in excess of the $52.815 million alleged. The HCPR Report of 2006 shows that CNLs associated companies (i.e., Chevron Oil Co. Nig. Ltd. (COCNL) and Texaco Overseas (Nigeria) Petroleum Company Unlimited (TOPCON)) were used to duplicate and replicate a RAB grant of $43 million to commit a tax fraud of $113 million. CNL was said to have overinflated pension costs by $139,341,690 in order to gain a cost. Chevron was in 1998 and 1999, alleged to have diverted US$75million government tax through dividends. Chevron evaded tax through claims to unmerited capital allowance, based on fictitious qualifying capital expenditure by US$190million. Chevron evaded tax through claims to unmerited tax credits, such as Reserve Additional Bonus and Intangible Drilling Cost (IDC) by US$222million. Through conspiracy with the Nigerian tax officials, Chevron was assessed to lower amount of tax than expected by US96million.18

The case of Halliburton is worthy of mention in that the officials publicly admitted in the United States that its Nigerian arm in 2006 paid bribes worth $2.4 million dollars to tax official in return for favourable tax rebate worth more than 14 million dollars in tax.19 Halliburton is one of the worlds largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, with global revenue of $18.3 billion for the year 2008. This case involved a tax scheme whereby a MNC was able to establish affiliates incorporated in a particular jurisdiction in order to shelter foreign-source income, thereby enabling that income to benefit from a lower tax rate. Thus, the tax officials in Delta State had caused the government to lose $793,940 in PAYE tax for 2002 and 2003, and $325,440 payable to tax officials. In Lagos State, the government lost $80,000 in 2002, an unknown amount for 2003, and $97,860 to tax officials as bribe. As a consequence, Lagos State was able to collect only $121,700 from the negotiated sum of $545,000, Halliburton West Africa Ltd.20

The Minister of Aviation has recently accused some foreign airline operators in Nigeria of defrauding the country to the tune of a whopping US$500million. Lufthansa makes 60 per cent of its international profit from the Nigerian route and that it was only fair if the company pays what is due to the Nigerian people and economy.21 In 2003 and 2004, another multinational company in Nigeria, Bristow Helicopters was implicated in the bribing of tax officials to the tune of US$423,000; in exchange for reduced employment taxes.21 Bristows wholly owned United States subsidiary, AirLog International Ltd (AirLog), through its Nigerian affiliate, Pan African Airlines Nigeria Ltd. (PAAN), was implicated in evading the payment of PAYE. Bristow has three affiliates in Nigeria. AirLog owns a 40 per cent stake in PAAN. 49 per cent of Bristow Aviation is owned by Bristow, and Bristow Aviation owns 40 per cent of Bristow Nigeria the complex structure that allows for tax evasion. This case

10

shows how PAAN devised a tax evasion plan involving the interface between its company executives and Nigerian Internal Revenue officials in Delta State and Lagos State, the two states where PAAN operated. PAAN and Bristow Nigeria under-reported their employees payroll expenses, which involved deliberately claiming a deduction which it knew it was not entitled to and which was perpetrated by means of inducements (bribes) made to tax officials. Poor internal controls and the complex corporate structure of the Bristow Group enabled the tax fraud and the illegal payments to tax officials to go undetected.21

While accountants and tax professionals are not expected to condone tax evasion by their clients and are expected to promote transparency and accountability and devise techniques for detecting tax fraud, it has been shown that some professionals do, in fact, use their expertise to facilitate both tax avoidance and tax evasion practices. It has been proven that tax

revenues cannot be evaded or avoided without the involvement of accountants, lawyers and bankers offshore tax havens, which provide secrecy and low regulation, are key vehicles for the movement of hot money22

ANALYSES The examples shown above clearly indicts the worlds multinationals, a majority of which originate in the largest economies, as the one that are by far most adept in exploiting and abusing national tax systems. Due to their total size they can force many governments and authorities to grant them special tax breaks or use many techniques to hedge on paying appropriate taxes, and by reason of their international scope they can shift around their revenue, profits, losses, and debt as they please.

11

The corporate world has become better and better at avoiding and evading taxes in recent years. Through a range of on-shore and off-shore operations, multinational corporations are sheltering profits and plainly exploiting tax laws and systems. Some of this is legal, other aspects and parts are illegal. The issue is now high on the political agenda though not as it ought to be, the aggressive use of all kinds of tools, instruments and measures to dodge taxes is a growing concern. Besides lobbying law makers to continuously enact tax concessions, it seems clear that many corporations have become more efficient at avoiding and evading. Thanks to the growing sophistication and diversification of financial products and services, companies have plenty of lawful means by which to escape their responsibilities to contribute to societys needs.

With developments linked to globalisation, multinationals have found it even easier to take advantage of their ability to break themselves into many entities on paper, and treat completely phoney, non-existent transactions among those entities as if they really happened. And thus, as they typically operate in many jurisdictions through multiple subsidiaries, they have plenty of opportunities to move profits away from where they are earned and into places where they will not be taxed.

They are stimulated by profitability, and intense competition and pressure to increase earnings, so these capitalist enterprises constantly seek new ways of boosting their earnings by developing complex structures and novel ways of increasing their profits by exploiting ambiguities in the law. The evidence shows that tax havens and offshore financial centres, shaped by globalisation, are major structures facilitating the anti-social tax practices of MNCs. Recent findings also suggest that the local business elite and local professionals are key actors in facilitating these anti-social tax practices in Nigeria for their own financial gain.

12

These MNC practices also shift the tax burden to less mobile capital and less well-off citizens, and thereby undermine the Nigerian social fabric.23

The reason for the prevalence of tax evasion in third world countries is corruption. There are corrupt tax officials who collude or cooperate with the tax payers who intend to evade taxes. When they detect an instance of evasion, they refrain from reporting in return for illegal gratification or bribe. Corruption by tax officials is a serious problem for the tax administration in a huge number of underdeveloped countries.

The existence of tax havens and offshore finance centres are part of the sophistication in tax planning schemes especially among the Multinational companies. Tax havens have been seen to heighten inequality and poverty, corrodes democracy, distorts markets, and undermines financial and other regulation as well as curbing economic growth, accelerating capital flight from poor countries, and promoting corruption and crime around the world. These activities are sustained and supported by the banking secrecy laws in international finance that hinders criminal investigation and fosters criminality. The multinational companies with their extensive influence are not open about their financial affairs and refuse to publish data where they operate their businesses even when summoned to do so.24

Conclusion In more recent times, multinational corporations have grown in power and visibility in the public domain where indeed, they are viewed with increased suspicion given their perceived lack of concern for the economic well-being of particular geographic regions and the impression that multinationals are gaining power in relation to national government agencies, international trade federations and organizations, and local, national labour organizations.

13

While no one doubts the economic success and pervasiveness of multinational corporations, their motives and actions have been called into question worldwide.

In sum, the evidence from the cases examined above has implicated MNCs in adopting a variety of tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes through, inter alia, under-reporting their taxable profits and manipulating their accounting reports. The cases show that one of the problems lies in the difficulty of being able to distinguish tax evasion from tax avoidance because of the thin line that separates the two concepts. It has been argued that, tax avoidance (which is legal, but possibly unethical) may turn to evasion when it is challenged in court or through investigation, as was shown in the cases involving Chevron Nigeria and the Halliburton group. In the cases examined, the activities in Nigeria of MNCs were influenced by the growth of globalisation and by the use of offshore financial structures and tax havens for the purpose of shifting profits out of Nigeria.

Although MNCs have been the subject of litigation by the Nigerian State and the Nigerian Federal Inland Revenue Services, which have implicated and indicted MNCs for perpetrating allegedly fraudulent tax practices in Nigeria, some MNCs operating in Nigeria have taken (and continue to take) advantage of Nigerias volatile tax environment in order to manage their tax liabilities. They have done so with the collaboration of the Nigerian elite and Nigerian tax officials and also accounting and taxation professionals.

It is incontrovertible that multinationals are guilty of tax evasion and this requires a stringent fiscal management of the tax laws which should be strengthened to deal with the unethical and anti-social role played by MNCs in Nigeria. Thus, practical steps should be taken to correct the structural defects in the tax legislation, as complexities leave room for dispute

14

about the intention of the law as written and for creative attempts to find arrangements that fall within the letter, even if not in the spirit, of the law. When assessing the fall in corporate taxes and the risks it poses to our societies, the otherwise important question of legality can take a backseat to the pragmatic question of how much tax is avoided and evaded. At the end of the day, if there is a legal loophole, it should be fixed; if there are corporate delinquents, they should be punished.

Endnotes 1. 2. 3. The Multinational Corporation and Global Governance, www.indiana.edu/~ipe/spero04.pdf. Dunning, John H. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1992), 3. World Banks 2006 National GDP figures http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf. Accessed on 15 august 2011. Governance for sustainable human development, A UNDP policy document, http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy/chapter1.htm Accessed on 15 august 2011. Encyclopaedia of World Geography, London: Facts on File, 2005. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm. Accessed on 15 august 2011. M.J. Graetz & D.H. Schenk, Federal Income Taxation, Principles and Policies, 4th ed. 2001. Encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=%22taxation22. Accessed on 15 august 2011. Owolabi M Bakre, Looting by the Ruling Elites, Multinational Corporations and the Accountants: The Genesis of Indebtedness, Poverty and Underdevelopment of Nigeria. http//.www.bakre2006.pdf. Accessed on 15 august 2011. Flesch MC. Tax avoidance: the attitude of the courts and the legislature. Current Legal Problems 1968; 21:21538. Teju Somorin, Tax Evasion in Africa: Kinds of Evasion, How to Control it the Nigerian Experience. http//.www.unpan/043343.pdf. Accessed on 15 August 2011. Tax Justice Network. Global tax justice: a task for Nordic co-operation; 2006. http://blogi.kaapeli.fi/tjnnordic/doc/Mission Statement/index html, Accessed on 15 August 2011. London Financial Times, May 23, 2008. Daily Independent, August 24, 2006; This Day, August 24, 2006; Daily Sun, August 24, 2006). London Financial Times, May 23, 2008, Guardian, May 21, 2008. Daily Independent, August 24, 2006 Nigeria: Mobil Sued Over Tax Evasion
15

4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/nigeria_mobil_sued_over_tax_evasion 17. Is The Nigerian Government Scared of Multinational Oil Companies? http://nigeriantimes.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-nigerian-government-scaredof.html In ABZ Report, 2005, CHEVRON in $10.8 billion Tax Fraud in Nigeria http://nigeriantimes.blogspot.com/2005/08/chevron-in-18-billion-tax-fraudin.html Tax justice for Africa 2006 Vanguard, 25 July 2005. ibid This Day, December 5, 2006. The Nigerian Security and Exchange Commission Report, 2007. Olatunde J. Otusanya, The Role of Multinational Companies in Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance: The Case of Nigeria. http://www.citulike.org/user/dsogge/author/otusanya:OJ Ibid

18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adaji, I., Nigeria lost US$26.9b to Niger Delta Crisis says NACCIMA, Punch, June 6, 2008. Africa All Party Parliamentary Group Report The Other Side of the Coin: The UK and Corruption in Africa, March; www.africaappg.org.uk. 2006. African Peer Review Mechanism Report (APRM), Corruption has ruined Nigeria, Punch, Tuesday, June 3. 2008. Auditor-Generals Report, Auditor-General Indicts Reps on N184m Expenditure, Punch, May 31. 2008. Bakre, O M. The Spoils of Oil: How Multinationals and their Professional Advisers Drain Nigeria of much Needed Resources, Tax Justice Focus, third quarter, Volume 2, No. 3, 4-5. 2006. Bakre, O M., Tax Evasion and Poverty in Nigeria, Alternative Sud, Volume 14, No. 1, pp. 151-171. 2007 Christian Aid, The Shirts off their Back: How Tax Policies Fleece the Poor, http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/509tax/ accessed on 14August 2011. Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge : Polity Press. 47, 1990. Halliburton, Halliburton acknowledges bribes may have been paid, Associated Press, November. 2004. Igbrude, Y. Assist Oil-Producing Communities, Multinational Urged, Punch, October 12. 2005. Shells Corrupt Game in Nigeria, The Punch, Wednesday June 21. 2006. Sikka, P, Private on Parade, Why does government think private sector managers can run failing hospitals, when theres so much evidence to the contrary, Guardian, Tuesday, June 10. 2008. Sikka, P., The Role of Offshore Financial Centre in Globalization, Accounting Forum, Vol. 27, Number 4, pp. 365-399. 2003. Teju Somorin, Tax Evasion in Africa: Kinds of Evasion, How to Control it the Nigerian Experience. http//.www.unpan/043343.pdf. Accessed on 15 august 2011. Wolfowitz, P., Nigeria has lost US$300 billion to corruption, This Day, October 17. 2006.

16

You might also like