If the columnist Ronald Mason had read Charles Dickens’ 1838 novel Oliver Twist, or before that, George Chapman’s 1654 play Revenge for Honour, he would have understood that the Government’s transfer pricing law is an unadulterated ass, unworthy even of his feeble defence.

Writing in the

Sunday Gleaner, December 27, 2015, Mason questions the commitment of business people who are worried that the transfer pricing law will ruin Jamaica, in much the same way that the bauxite levy of the 1970s put paid to the expansion of the bauxite-alumina industry here.

Why is it that it is the people who have the least at stake who are the quickest to denigrate those who have invested their life’s work and worth into building this country through thick and thin? Mason, of course, approaches every issue with an open mouth instead of an open mind. He will live to rue his asinine approach to this very critical issue.

Whatever Dr Peter Phillips, the finance minister, and his political minions want to say, the transfer pricing law is intended merely to squeeze more tax out of a struggling business sector under the guise of tidying up the tax structure. The approach being taken is bungling, hurried, without thought, unconstitutional, and fraught with danger for present and future investment in Jamaica.

Dr Phillips’ response to an editorial titled ‘Like Caesar’s wife, Mr Richard Byles should be above suspicion’, in the December 24, 2015 edition of this newspaper, completely ignores the real points of contention. Perhaps it is because he himself finds the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the transfer pricing law indefensible and potentially damaging to Jamaica. If he has any remaining sense of what is best for his country, he would revisit this law and tell the Fund, politely, where to shove it.

The parallel between the bauxite levy of 1974 and the current transfer pricing law is stark. Both ignore the fact that businesses conducted their partnerships with related parties based on contractual agreements. To change the rules in midstream will lead to great uncertainty and possible irrecoverable losses that put people out of business or force them to move their operations to less hostile locations.

The rules are shrouded in mystery. No one is clear about what will happen. We are likely to see here what happened in Britain when such a law was first promulgated in the 1990s. It took England — which has much more resources at its disposal and a much more robust legislative arm — several years to be in a position to operate efficiently. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed and only one was won by the Government.

It is not the kind of law which is to be rushed as we are now doing. It is a certain recipe for misunderstandings, tax disputes and litigation, and creates uncertainty for taxpayers who have conducted their operations along well-established business models.

With all the claims of nationalistic ideals, the ugly truth is that when businesses and investment leave, what remains is what we have today — a basket case of an economy.

The bauxite levy was meant to do great things for this country. What it instead led to was the ruination of the industry when the companies left or scaled down operations. The promised benefits did not materialise, and many communities literally died. This is what we are now facing with the transfer pricing regime. We should not wait until it happens before acting.

In any event, the transfer pricing regime is illegal because the amendments to the income tax laws contain retroactive provisions for criminal offences, which is an example of a Government trampling on the Constitution of Jamaica and a dereliction of its duty to protect that same constitution.

Despite claims to the contrary, the proposed Bill does not have the “amnesty” provisions as set out in the advisory from Tax Administration Jamaica, so it cannot be relied on.

The only consolation is that Jamaica has not rushed into the appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice, where the claws of local politicians could ensure that there is no redress to this transfer pricing law. Long live the United Kingdom Privy Council!

It is not about hiding taxes, as some unthinking minions have suggested. It is about ensuring that we don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Only a stupid Government would do that.