It's not the audits, it's the deductions

Each year, several Nevada gold mines claim so many tax deductions that they pay no mining tax at all.

This chart is from my 2008 factsheet on mining tax deductions, revised to include data from 2008 and 2009 (detailed 2010 information won't be available until the Tax Department publishes its annual Net Proceeds of Minerals Bulletin later this spring). It shows the total number of Nevada gold producing mines, the number of those that paid no mining taxes at all, and the value of totally untaxed gold that was produced at those mines:

So 111 times over ten years, one Nevada gold mine or another claimed that gold produced at that mine had no no taxable value. As a result, more than $4.3 billion was produced at gold mines where the mines paid no mining taxes whatsoever.

As I reported in 2008, the most egregious individual examples occurred earlier in the decade before the price of gold began to skyrocket. For instance:

• Barrick's Goldstrike mine produced gold worth $442.1 million in 2001 and $520.7 million in 2002. In both years, the total tax bill on that gold was zero. 
• Newmont's Carlin Trend produced $394.7 million worth of gold in 2003, and $622.7 million of gold in 2005, and paid no mining taxes whatsoever on that mine's production in those years.

Even as the price of gold began scaling unprecedented heights, several mines have continued to claim enough deductions to completely erase their mining tax altogether. While less spectacular than the Goldstrike and Carlin Trend examples, in 2008 and 2009 there was still more than $400 million worth of gold produced at Nevada mines where the mines paid no taxes at all.

(A noteworthy aside: Of the $281.3 million of entirely untaxed gold in 2008, the bulk of it -- $211 million worth -- was produced at Newmont's Phoenix Project. Pheonix started producing a trickle of gold in 2001, but production ramped up in 2006, and by 2009 it was Nevada's seventh largest gold mine. From 2001 through 2008, nearly a half-billion dollars worth of gold was produced at Phoenix. None of it was taxed. When Phoenix paid a total of $3 million in taxes on gold production of more than $300 million in 2009, it was the first mining tax revenue counties or the state had ever collected from the mine.)

A couple things...

First, for a number of reasons, including SEC and IRS reporting requirements but primarily because of the breadth and depth of deductions allowed under Nevada law, I strongly believe the calculation of deductions at those untaxed mines was  completely accurate. I (along with everyone else, apparently) have requested a detailed audit history from the Department of Taxation, and fully expect to find that in those 111 instances where mines paid no taxes at all, several of them -- perhaps even the giant Goldstrike and Carlin examples -- passed with flying colors.

In other words, under Nevada law, a mine can produce tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gold and not pay a single dime of taxes on it.

A system that porous and that riddled with loopholes is a farce. It doesn't need more rigorous auditing. It needs changed. All the hullabaloo about audits notwithstanding, focusing on audits is a distraction -- and one that is likely welcomed by the industry. The audits aren't the problem. The deductions are.

(This might be a good point to reiterate that a total of $36 billion in gold was produced from all mines in Nevada from 2000 through 2009, and $27.5 billion -- 76 percent -- of that value was deducted and never taxed.)

Second, in those 111 separate instances where mines didn't pay any tax on the gold they produced, they were essentially claiming it cost more to mine the gold than the gold was worth, so there wasn't anything left over to pay the state of Nevada. The mines don't tell their energy, chemical, or equipment providers, their insurance companies -- their lobbyists -- that they can't pay them anything because the mine didn't pencil out. Only the people of Nevada get told that.

Finally (for now), and probably least importantly, that fact that several producing gold mines pay no taxes whatsoever underscores the irrelevance of the industry's relentless mantra that the mining tax is a property tax.  What other Nevada property owner is allowed to pay no property taxes at all? If a restaurant's expenses outstrip it's revenues, the restaurant still has to pay property taxes. The mining tax bears no similarity whatsoever to any property tax that anyone else in Nevada pays, and the industry's obsession with the subject is an attempt to distract legislators from more meaningful -- and pernicious -- facets of Nevada mining tax policy. When mining lobbyists tell legislators that the mining tax is a property tax, what they're really saying (albeit unintentionally) is that the mining tax needs to be changed.

Convoluted, dysfunctional, inadequate, unreliable and in need of scrapping -- that's what Nevada's mining tax is.

Comments

[ColinFromLasVegas]

"Convoluted, dysfunctional, inadequate, unreliable and in need of scrapping -- that's what Nevada's mining tax is."

Exactly. But this is what Governor Dracula, a person who I say is STILL employed by the largest law and lobbying firm in the State of Nevada, wants to perpetuate.

Yes. I said it. Governor Dracula don't serve Nevada. He serves Vargas Jones, his corporate masters.

Keep going with it, Gleanster. Ratchet it up a few notches and don't let them bastards get away with it. It's important. People need to know what these Republican bastards in Nevada are actually up to.

They want money and power. They don't want to do what's right and just.

Keep rolling with it, Gleanster. You're doing some important shit.

Not sure if I'm saying it right because of my retired Navy background vocabulary, but I think you get the jist of what I'm sayin'. Work with me....

[get real]

Dino DiCianno did put the quash on the audits. Yes, the deductions are a big part of the problem, but the lax audits and closure of the Elko tax office and loss of experienced mine auditors was created by dicianno **and** Chris Neilson.

[dave404]

Excellent commentary!

@ get real; Do you have a paper trail on those assertions?

[maven]

This just gets better by the moment. I may cancel my cable tee-vee and just watch the mining tax/audit drama for the next few months.

Hang is there, Gleaner (despite the fact that you're sucking commenters away from my blog. Sigh).

Anything we can do to help? I'd be honored.

[Angie Sullivan]

I want an audit - to find out just how many toilets, kitchen sinks, trips to Hawaii, luxury vehicles etc have been deducted. I'd like to know who has the most billions and where they live in the summer and the winter - do they own a personal island in the Caribbean? I'm nosy that way.

I want to know exactly what mining bought for a WHOOPING $4.2 BILLION dollars that allowed the Governor to hurt every student in Nevada. Then I want the auditors to call me up and tell me how I can increase my refund - by legally deducting everything I ever buy. . . oooo wait, I guess that is only a privilege of the mining billionaires. The rest of us have to pay our taxes.

[Goldy]

Income tax. Income tax. Income tax. If that is what you want on mining compaines, then for sure it is a good idea for the rest of Nevada companies, right?

Meanwhille, back at the ranch while the rest of the group was obsessing on mining, the state and counties were giving away millions of dollars to companies already in the state. They pay less in taxes than in surrounding states BEFORE the rebates were given.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/15/2-local-companies-qualify/

Gleaner logic: mining makes a lot of money by extracting minerals from the earth. The cost of that extraction is significant to the people of the State. We should tax the income of the mining process to make up for the cost and provide for the people.

Other logic: general business makes a lot of money and they demand services (education, health care, stability, roads). Those services cost a significant amount of money. We should tax the income of general business, including mining, to make up for any costs and provide for the people.

Is there a reason Gleaner only obsesses on mining? Taking from the land is not a good enough answer. The 3 kids of a Zappos family not receiving an adequate public education are far more damaged by the lack of tax revenue paid by Zappos than the damage done to a remote strip of land in Elko.

Let's all work together for comprehensive, sound tax policy. Or just keep obsessing about the minining industry.

[Douglas Democrat]

"Let's all work together for comprehensive, sound tax policy. Or just keep obsessing about the minining industry."

When the mining industry stops claiming that the gold they pull out of the ground is worth less than the "cost" of pulling it out (while simultaneously claiming record profits to their shareholders), we'll stop obsessing over it.

Somebody over there is cooking the books, and if you can't detect the stench you have a problem.

[dave404]

@ Goldy;
I believe that "remote strip of land in Elko" consumed ALL of Elko County's road maintenance funds a few years ago which necessitated County leaders to ask the Legislature to allow them to raise taxes. A million dollar road, wasn't it?

I don't believe Gleaner is "obsessing" over mining, but has for several years, focused on mining.

I believe the extraction tax in Alaska is 25%.

...and, what is the name of the county that under financial hardship was placed under control of the state? What was the business of the major employer in that county? Honestly, I cannot remember and hope you will refresh our memories.

[ColinFromLasVegas]

I wouldn't doubt there is some kind of bizzaro math going on here.

"Okay. We gotta tax this? Okay. One here that needs to be taxes. These two here don't. Because they were found in the parking lot. Finders Keepers. Okay. This one here needs to be taxed. These three over here? No. They fell off of a truck on the highway somewhere. Again, Finders Keepers. Okay. To continue.... One for you, three for me....one for you, twelve for me.... Damn. We're cruisin' now, ain't we??!?!!?!?"

That may be an exagerration, but I bet I'm very, very close to the truth.

And Governor Dracula is in charge of it all and gets his cut later.

[dave404]

Quite a bit off topic, I note that the Truckee Meadow C.C. president has decided, if push comes to shove, to eliminate 'high cost programs' in nursing, dental hygiene, radiology and courses for 'first responders'.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/16/monster-loses-some-its-bite/

I can't imagine TMCC president, Dr. Maria Sheehan, is unaware of the need in the Reno area for college graduates in these programs?! Or, does President Sheehan believe that the Reno area would be better served by maintaining degree programs in Architectural Design Technology, Architecture (they should be directed to UNLV's Architecture School which just shed some 500 students), Civil Engineering Practitioner and Construction Technology?
http://www.tmcc.edu/president/downloads/documents/PRESBudgetMagnitude031411.PDF

The Board of Regents has recently allowed differential tuition for high cost programs and I would encourage President Sheehan to address the needs of her community instead of supporting hyperbole.

[Goldy]

@ Doug and @ Dave:

Again, there's a link that millions of tax dollars walked out the door and you don't seem to care if you can just "get mining."

Get mining! Get them with an income tax. But shouldn't we get the guy selling the pick and shovel too? He/she is making millions from high gold prices. They have kids in school.

If the ambition to "get mining" were wildly successful beyond anyone's dreams, Nevada would pick up an extra $100 million? Maybe $200? Then what? That is a tear drop in the ocean of the needs of the people and kids in Nevada.

If you would help with a broad based tax, it would mean billions. And it would grow with a prosperous economy, unlike a minining specific tax, which would shrink as the economy prospered.

But forge on. Get mining. Get those deductions. Just more tears in the ocean of need.

[Douglas Democrat]

"Again, there's a link that millions of tax dollars walked out the door and you don't seem to care if you can just "get mining."

Just stop talking now, please. You don't know me, so don't presume to dictate what I do and do not care about.

[Bob Fulkerson]

Goldy: Hard to know where to begin with you, but I'll try.
First, is it ok with you that 111 mines over a 10-year period brought in $4.3 billion in gold and paid nothing under the mining tax?
Second, What has Barrick has done to promote a broad based business tax?
Finally, why can't we have both a mining tax and a broad based business tax?

[dave404]

@ Goldy:

It wasn't all that long ago that you supported my post on broadening the tax base including a service tax and I don't walk away from that belief. I also believe in an extration tax. Nevadan's were not very sophisticated and forward looking in the late 1980's when the 5% limit was approved in the voting booth.

In the instant case it was instructive to learn from the Gleaner how many "millions of tax dollars walked" off the balance sheet with or without an audit. I'm not looking for a pissing match, but you may be too familiar with the bride to be considered a long lost relative of gold mining.

Again, do you recall what Nevada county had its operations taken over by the state? What business was the leading employer involved?

[Goldy]

Bob:

I would guess, and it's my own conjecture, that mining would be much more amenable to a mining tax increase if there was a general business tax included. And that's why we should work together toward that end.

Mining participated in and supported the Guinn tax study and recommendations in 02-03, which called for a gross receipts tax. And stood in support through the process.

What did plan do?

[Nevada Style]

Here's a nice video of Dino DiCianno with an explanation on everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFWFbWuVCd8

[Goldy]

Perhaps if I get a bull horn and scream to the cars passing by 395 that a broad based business tax is what's best for Nevada, I qualify as supporting it.

[dave404]

Does anyone know what Nevada county had a financial meltdown and had to be taken over by the State? I know it happened, I just can't locate any info and it did not happen all that long ago.

[Lester H]

White Pine County made by mining, wiped out by mining and remade by mining.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/8201107.html