Audit Report on the Qualifying Certificate Program, Guam Economic Development Authority, Government of Guam (ReportNo. 01-I-419)

[Audit Report on the Qualifying Certificate Program, Guam Economic Development Authority, Government of Guam (ReportNo. 01-I-419)]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Title: Audit Report on the Qualifying Certificate Program, Guam
Economic Development Authority, Government of Guam (Report
No. 01-I-419)

N-IN-GUA-006-99-(B)-M

September 30, 2001

Mr. Chris Murphy
Chairman, Board of Directors
Guam Economic Development Authority
ITC Building, Suite 511
590 South Marine Drive
Tamuning, Guam 96911

Subject: Audit Report on the Qualifying Certificate Program, Guam Economic
Development Authority, Government of Guam (Report No. 01-I-419)

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This report presents the results of our audit of the Qualifying Certificate Program
administered by the Guam Economic Development Authority.

Please provide a response to this report by November 21, 2001. The response should
provide the information requested in Appendix 3 and should be addressed to our Pacific
Field Office, 415 Chalan San Antonio, Baltej Pavilion - Suite 306, Tamuning, Guam
96913.

Section 5(a) of the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. app. 3) requires the Office of Inspector
General to list this report in its semiannual report to the U.S. Congress. In addition, the
Office of Inspector General provides audit reports to the Congress.

Sincerely,

Arnold E. van Beverhoudt, Jr.
Audit Manager for Insular Areas

cc: Honorable Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam

U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Qualifying Certificate Program,
Guam Economic Development Authority,
Government of Guam
Report No. 01-I-419
September 2001

The Guam Economic Development Authority was established in August 1965 as a public
corporation "to assist in the implementation of an integrated program for the economic
development of Guam" and "to be a catalyst in the economic development" of Guam by
"aiding private enterprise without unfairly competing with it." The Authority is authorized
to provide loans, issue revenue bonds, purchase mortgages, and function as the
Government's financial advisor and as manager of industrial park leases. In addition, the
Authority encourages private sector investment by granting tax rebates and abatements to
qualifying businesses under the Qualifying Certificate Program.

Although the Qualifying Certificate Program provided significant benefits to the Guam
economy, we found that there was a need for improvements in the Program. Specifically:

The Government of Guam lost tax revenues of at least $769,650 and could lose future tax
revenues totaling about $70.8 million because the Authority recommended the approval of
Qualifying Certificates with unnecessarily generous tax benefits to hotel and tourist
industry
firms that may not have needed the level of tax benefits given.

The Authority improperly granted tax abatements of $459,777 to beneficiaries that were not
in compliance with their Qualifying Certificates, apparently used surveillance fees of about
$220,000 for purposes other than monitoring beneficiary compliance, and authorized
beneficiaries to receive additional tax benefits of at least $815,990 while concurrently
allowing the beneficiaries to not employ about 371 Guam residents.

Gross receipts taxes of more than $5 million and an undetermined amount of use taxes were
abated improperly and without verification of the amount or eligibility.

Legally mandated investments in Guam's economy totaling at least $2.3 million may not
have taken place because the Authority did not include language in Qualifying Certificates
requiring beneficiaries to reinvest tax benefits and, for those Certificates that included the
reinvestment requirement, did not monitor the beneficiaries' compliance.

We made 14 recommendations to the Chairman of the Authority's Board of Directors to
address these issues by seeking changes to the Qualifying Certificate law, developing
standard operating procedures for some of the Authority's activities, providing formal
training to compliance monitoring staff, and coordinating with the Division of Revenue and
Taxation and the Customs and Quarantine Agency regarding gross receipts and use tax
abatements.

AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL EVALUATION

The Authority concurred with 8 of the report's 14 recommendations, partially concurred
with
1 recommendation, and expressed nonconcurrence with the other 5 recommendations.
Based
on the response, we considered 6 recommendations unresolved and requested additional
information for 8 recommendations.

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Title 12, Chapter 58, of the Guam Code Annotated established the Qualifying Certificate
Program to provide eligible businesses with financial assistance through rebates (refunds)
of income taxes paid and abatements (forgiveness) of property taxes owed. Under the
original law, which was in effect from 1965 to 1994, the Government of Guam granted
these
tax benefits through Qualifying Certificate contracts with Guam-based corporations
engaged
or to be engaged in the service, manufacturing, agriculture, and fishing industries. To be
eligible under the Program, businesses had to either create new employment, replace
imports,
reduce consumer prices, or create vitally needed facilities. The first Qualifying Certificate
was issued in 1965, and three Qualifying Certificate beneficiaries have continued to receive
tax benefits under the Program for more than 30 years. During the period of
December 31, 1989 to September 5, 1997, the Authority's Board of Directors imposed a
moratorium on the issuance of Qualifying Certificates to hotels.

In December 1994, the Guam Legislature amended the sections of the Guam Code
Annotated
establishing the Qualifying Certificate Program. The amendments included expanding the
available tax benefits by adding gross receipts taxes to the types of taxes eligible for
abatement and adding domestic insurance, captive insurance, nonhotel-tourism related
housing development, communication, and trust companies to the list of eligible industries.
The Guam Code Annotated provides that a Qualifying Certificate may be suspended,
rescinded, or revoked by the Governor of Guam on the recommendation of the Authority
for
"failure to comply with any condition or obligation set out in the Certificate after having
been notified by the Authority in writing of such failure to comply and after having been
given by the Authority a reasonable period of time within which to correct such a failure."

As of December 31, 1999, the Authority had 31 active Qualifying Certificates and
10 Qualifying Certificate applications in process. During fiscal years 1997, 1998, and
1999,
the Authority collected certificate surveillance fees totaling $683,605 and the 31 beneficiary
companies received tax abatements and rebates totaling at least $18 million, as shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Qualifying Certificates, Surveillance Fees, and Tax Benefits
for Fiscal Years 1997, 1998, and 1999

Certificate Certificates Applications SurveillanceTax Benefits

Categories Outstanding In Process Fees Received*** Granted****

Hotel 15 5 $636,355 $9,638,574*
Tourist Facility 3 3 24,000 1,221,871
Domestic Insurance 6 0 14,500 5,389,606
Captive Insurance 1 0 1,750 0
Medical Facility 2 0 1,000 0
Communications 4** 0 6,000 1,864,253
Manufacturing 0 1 0 0
Housing 0 1 0 0

Total 31 10 $683,605 $18,114,304
__________
* Includes benefits for 20 Certificates of Exemption issued to contractors on one hotel
development project as part of a hotel's Qualifying
Certificate.
** Includes three Qualifying Certificates issued to corporate shareholders.
*** Consists of legally required fees collected from Certificate holders to defray the cost
of performing monitoring.
**** Consists of estimates, based on the best available information from the Department
of Revenue and Taxation, of the value of tax
rebates and abatements granted to Certificate holders.

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Guam Economic Development
Authority (1) effectively administered the Qualifying Certificate Program and (2) achieved
the objectives for which the Program was established. The original scope of the audit
included a review of the Qualifying Certificates issued during fiscal years 1997, 1998,
1999,
and 2000 (through December 31, 1999). We subsequently expanded the audit scope to
include the applications for Qualifying Certificates in process, the monitoring actions taken,
and the tax abatement and rebate transactions processed through June 30, 2000. This is the
second of three reports we plan to issue on the operations of the Guam Economic
Development Authority. The other two reports will cover (1) economic development loan
programs and (2) bonds, leases, and financial activities.

To obtain information on the processing and issuance of Qualifying Certificates and the
administration of the Qualifying Certificate Program, we interviewed officials and/or
reviewed records at the offices of the Guam Economic Development Authority, the
Authority's independent public accounting firm, the Guam Department of Revenue and
Taxation, the Guam Customs and Quarantine Agency, the Guam Department of Public
Works, and two beneficiary hotels.

Our review was made, as applicable, in accordance with the "Government Auditing
Standards," issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly, we
included such tests of records and other auditing procedures that were considered necessary
under the circumstances.

As part of the audit, we evaluated the system of internal controls related to the financial and
operational management of the Qualifying Certificate Program to the extent that we
considered necessary to accomplish the audit objective. Based on our review, we
determined
that the Authority generally achieved the purposes of the Qualifying Certificate Program.
However, we identified internal control weaknesses in the areas of the approval of
Qualifying Certificates, the monitoring of beneficiary compliance, the abatement of gross
receipts and use taxes, and the reinvestment of tax abatements. These weaknesses are
discussed in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Our
recommendations, if implemented, should improve the internal controls in these areas.

PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE

During the past 5 years, neither the U.S. General Accounting Office nor the Office of
Inspector General has issued an audit report on the Guam Economic Development
Authority.
However, in November 1990, the Office of Inspector General issued the audit report
"Followup Review of the Guam Economic Development Authority's Administration of the
Qualifying Certificate Program" (No. 91-I-162). The report discussed the status of
recommendations contained in the October 1987 report "Guam Economic Development
Authority's Administration of the Qualifying Certificate Program" (No. 88-04). The
followup report stated that, although 6 of the 10 prior recommendations had been
implemented, the Authority continued to (1) issue Qualifying Certificates to ineligible
businesses; (2) grant recipients the maximum level of benefits allowed without
consideration
of limiting tax benefits to the level necessary for businesses to recover the amount of capital
invested; and (3) approve Qualifying Certificates for the hotel industry, which no longer
needed tax benefits. The followup report stated that the deficiencies related to the
Qualifying
Certificate Program resulted in potential lost revenues to the Government of Guam totaling
at least $89.7 million. The followup report made six recommendations, and based on our
current review, we determined that four of the six recommendations had not been
implemented.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. APPROVAL OF QUALIFYING CERTIFICATES

The Government of Guam lost tax revenues of at least $769,650 and could lose future tax
revenues totaling about $70.8 million because the Guam Economic Development Authority
recommended the approval of Qualifying Certificates with unnecessarily generous tax
benefits to hotel and tourist industry firms that may not have needed the level of tax benefits
given. This occurred because the Authority interpreted the Qualifying Certificate law as
not
allowing the Authority sufficient flexibility in specifying the terms and conditions of
Qualifying Certificates.

Controlling Law

On December 29, 1994, the Guam Legislature amended the 1965 law that established the
Qualifying Certificate Program. The statute (12 G.C.A. � 58105) provides that no
Qualifying Certificate shall be issued unless the Authority finds it will promote the general
economic development by the creation of employment and either (1) the replacement of
imports, (2) the reduction in consumer prices, (3) the creation of affordable housing or other
vital facilities, (4) the creation of economic activity, or (5) the establishment of Guam as
a
financial/insurance center for the Pacific and increasing the availability or lowering the cost
of insurance. Additionally, the statute (12 G.C.A. � 58109) requires that the Authority
consider several factors and make specific findings on (1) the impact of the Beneficiary's
proposed activities upon established businesses and markets in Guam, (2) the financial risk
facing the Beneficiary in undertaking the proposed activities, (3) the location of the
proposed
activities, and (4) the importance of the proposed activities to the economy of Guam and
to
the official economic policies of Guam. Lastly, the statute (12 G.C.A. � 58110) requires
that
the Authority consider several factors as terms and conditions of the specific tax benefits,
including limiting the benefits to a certain percentage, varying the rate of the tax benefit,
limiting the benefit to a fixed dollar amount, and conditioning the tax benefits on the
Beneficiary investing in or creating public improvements separate from the proposed
activities.

Based on the law, we believe that the Legislature granted the Authority sufficient flexibility
to decide the terms and conditions of Qualifying Certificates and did not limit the Authority
to granting Certificates only for the maximum allowable level of tax benefits.

Projects in Tourist Areas

During the period of September 5, 1997 to December 31, 1999, the Authority recommended
issuing Qualifying Certificates, which did not appear to consider the factors in the statute,
to two hotel expansion projects and one tourist attraction project. In addition, as of
June 30, 2000, the Authority was considering two additional hotel projects that had applied
for Qualifying Certificates but which also did not appear to consider the statutory factors.
According to the Authority's Administrator, the legislation establishing the Qualifying
Certificate Program required the Authority to issue certificates even in instances when the
Authority did not believe they should be recommended. The Administrator stated that the
portion of the hotel industry located in the Tumon Bay and Agana Bay areas was well
established and that incentives were therefore not necessary to attract new investments to
these areas. The Administrator also noted that a tourist attraction development at one of
Guam's major tourist sites did not need a Qualifying Certificate in order to be financially
viable. However, as a result of the Authority's recommendations for approval, the
Government of Guam lost tax revenues of at least $769,650 and may lose future tax
revenues
of about $28.5 million on the three projects.

In addition to not considering the statutory factors, economic considerations did not justify
the three Qualifying Certificates. We identified 15 hotels that were constructed during the
decade of the 1990s without receiving Qualifying Certificates. Further, the low demand for
Guam hotel rooms during the latter part of the decade, resulting from the Asian economic
downturn, did not justify foregoing future potential tax revenues to increase the level of
hotel
construction. Specifically, although the number of hotel rooms increased from 7,052 in
1996 to 9,238 in 1999, the room occupancy rate decreased from 85 percent in 1996 to 61
percent in 1999. Further, by recommending Qualifying Certificates for hotel projects in
the
same general area as other hotels that were constructed and continued to operate without
similar tax benefits, the Authority gave an unfair competitive advantage to the hotels with
Qualifying Certificates and tax benefits -- a factor which the Authority should have
considered in accordance with the statute (12 G.C.A. � 58109).

Hotel Construction Projects. For comparison with hotel construction projects that
benefitted from Qualifying Certificates, we identified two large resort hotels that were
constructed during the 1990s and were operating in the Tumon Bay and Agana Bay tourist
areas without receiving Qualifying Certificates. A 455-room hotel was constructed at
Tumon Bay without a Qualifying Certificate and tax benefits and has been in operation
since
1994.

Another hotel was constructed at Agana Bay without benefit of a Qualifying Certificate and
tax benefits and has been in operation since 1992. In 1996 this hotel constructed a water
park, and as of June 2000, the hotel was constructing a 144-room addition -- both without
the benefit of Qualifying Certificates or tax benefits.

In contrast, in proximity to these hotels were other hotel projects that received or were
considered for Qualifying Certificates by the Authority. For example:

In June 1998, the Government of Guam issued a Qualifying Certificate to a 500-room hotel
for a project to construct an additional 292-room tower. At the time, the hotel had almost
8 years remaining on an existing Qualifying Certificate, which was extended for almost
12 additional years under the new Qualifying Certificate. The tax revenues lost by the
Government as a result of the new tax benefits totaled at least $588,000 through June 30,
2000 and will total an estimated $16.9 million through the almost 20-year life of the new
Qualifying Certificate.

In September 1997, the Government of Guam issued a Qualifying Certificate to a hotel for
a water park that had already been constructed and had opened for operations in July 1997.
At the time, the hotel had 5 years remaining on an existing Qualifying Certificate, which
was extended for 15 additional years under the new Qualifying Certificate. The tax
revenues
lost by the Government as a result of the new tax benefits totaled $181,650 through June
30,
2000 and will total an estimated $10.7 million through the 20-year life of the new
Qualifying
Certificate.

Tourist Attraction Project. In March 1999, the Board recommended approval of a
Qualifying Certificate to a Guam-based company for development of tourist facilities at the
site of one of Guam's most prominent tourist attractions. The Board's recommendation for
approval reversed the Administrator's recommendation not to approve the application
during a February 23, 1999 meeting of the Authority's Credit Review Committee. In that
meeting, the Administrator noted:

Local residents can no longer visit the site free of charge. [The beneficiary] will now derive
profit from local persons who were previously able to visit this historical cultural point free
of charge.

The certificate beneficiaries controlled only 6 percent of the project site and the
Government
of Guam owned the other 94 percent.

On December 30, 1998, the Government of Guam authorized (and expended) $1.5 million
to improve the site.

[The developer's financial] projections and public hearing testimony indicate [the] project
will be immediately profitable.

[The net future value of the Government's $1.5 million] contribution based on the average
20 year Q.C. [Qualifying Certificate] term is $3,623,000. . . . The granting of a Q.C. on top
of this contribution . . . would produce gross inequity between [the developer] and other
Q.C.
beneficiaries.

Although at its February 23, 1999 meeting the Authority's Credit Review Committee
recommended rejecting the application for Qualifying Certificate, on March 15, 1999 the
Committee reversed its previous decision and recommended approval of the Qualifying
Certificate for the tourist attraction project. This action was taken after the beneficiary had
made several minor concessions, such as agreeing to provide security for the complex,
provide a local resident entrance fee, and contribute funds for cultural programs. In our
opinion, the Authority unnecessarily recommended approval of tax benefits that will result
in the potential loss of at least $900,406 in tax revenues over the 20-year life of the
Qualifying Certificate. The location of the facilities should have been considered and the
Authority should have made a specific finding of fact on that issue in accordance with the
statute (12 G.C.A. � 58109).

Timing of Application Filings

Based on our review of 13 Qualifying Certificate application files, we concluded that the
Authority had granted Qualifying Certificates and tax benefits to 10 of the businesses
although it appears the businesses did not need the tax benefits to attract investors, as set
forth in the statute (12 G.C.A. � 58100). In each of these cases, the companies had
essentially completed their financial and architectural planning and obtained building
permits
prior to applying for Qualifying Certificates. For example:

A hotel affiliated with a major chain did not file a Qualifying Certificate application for a
600-room, 22-floor hotel complex until August 1998, although the necessary building
permits had been approved by the Department of Public Works in 1996 and the project was
already under construction. The Qualifying Certificate was approved in April 2000, or
10 months after the hotel had already started operations. Based on the timing of the
Qualifying Certificate application, we believe that the hotel would have been constructed
even without a Qualifying Certificate and tax benefits. Based on information in the
Authority's files, we estimate that the Government will lose tax revenues of at least
$24.3 million over the 20-year life of the Qualifying Certificate. Additionally, the 1994
Qualifying Certificate law (12 G.C.A. � 58100) explicitly states that the program was being
restructured to increase participation by people who live and work on Guam, as opposed
to
helping foreign entrepreneurs and off-island investors.

Another business did not file a Qualifying Certificate application for a tourist attraction at
Two Lovers Point until November 1998, or 8 months after it had received the necessary
building permit from the Department of Public Works. Prior to receiving the Qualifying
Certificate, the company's Attorney was quoted in the Pacific Daily News on February 5,
1999 as having stated that his company would invest in the project whether or not the
company received a Qualifying Certificate. Based on information in the Authority's files,
we estimate that the Government will lose tax revenues of at least $900,406 over the
20-year
life of the Qualifying Certificate.

In September 1999, the Authority's Board of Directors passed Resolution 99-040, which
amended the Authority's standard operating procedures to require applicants to submit the
application for a Qualifying Certificate with property appraisal within 90 days after the
building permits had been issued by the Guam Department of Public works. Although the
establishment of this time requirement was a positive action, we recommend that the
Authority further amend its standard operating procedures to include the requirement for
a
letter of intent to be submitted 180 days prior to the approval of building permits and amend
its rules and regulations to include these requirements. We believe that the lead time of 180
days would help to ensure that businesses considered the need for tax benefits early in their
investment planning process and did not file applications for Qualifying Certificates "after
the fact" simply because the related tax benefits were available.

Negotiation of Tax Benefits

Although the Authority negotiated with Qualifying Certificate applicants on non-tax-related
benefits, Authority records indicated that little negotiation was made with applicants to
limit
the amount and time period of tax benefits recommended on either new or modified
Qualifying Certificates. In addition, the Authority had not identified or estimated all direct
and indirect costs to the Government of either new or renovation projects. In our opinion,
the Authority cannot effectively negotiate or recommend the granting of tax benefits,
potentially worth millions of dollars, to businesses without identifying all related
Government costs.

Level of Tax Benefits. During the period of October 1, 1996 to December 31, 1999, the
Authority recommended issuing Qualifying Certificates to seven businesses, excluding
insurance companies. Of the seven businesses, the Authority proposed granting the
maximum percentage of income tax rebates (75 percent) to all seven recipients and the
maximum period (20 years in four cases and 19 years in one case) to five of the seven
recipients. In addition, in at least six instances, the Authority recommended that beneficiary
firms receive extensions of existing tax benefits to include both the new project
renovations/additions and the original hotel properties that had been included in prior
Certificates. As a result, the six beneficiaries received tax benefits on essentially the same
properties for more than 25 years. For example:

A hotel first received a Qualifying Certificate in 1968, and when the hotel was subsequently
sold, the Certificate was assumed by the new owner. In 1979, the new owner applied for
and
received a new Certificate consequent to a major expansion. In 1985, a third Certificate
was
issued consequent to a 100-room expansion. Most recently, in 1998, a fourth Certificate
was
issued based on a 292-room expansion. Each of the four Certificates encompassed the
entire
hotel and provided a rebate of 75 percent of corporate income taxes and abatement of 100
percent of property taxes, and the final three Certificates also granted a rebate of 75 percent
of income taxes on dividends. Although the terms of the rebates/abatements varied slightly,
with the three extensions the hotel will receive a total of at least 48 years of income tax
rebates, 36 years of property tax abatements, and 15 years of dividend tax rebates. As a
result, and assuming additional extensions will not be granted, from June 1998 through June
2000 this hotel received tax benefits of at least $588,000 and from July 2000 through May
2017 will receive an additional tax benefits estimated to total $16.9 million.

As of June 30, 2000, another beneficiary had an application under review to receive similar
extended benefits (estimated to total $18 million in tax benefits).

The Guam Code Annotated (12 G.C.A. � 58132(c)) states, "The tax benefits applicable to
the additional activities may be at rates or for a term different from those tax benefits
applicable to the activities described in the original Qualifying Certificate, and the new
Qualifying Certificate may include terms, conditions, rebates or abatements different from
those in the original Qualifying Certificate." The Authority's Administrator stated that the
Authority should have "looked at the application more closely" before recommending the
Qualifying Certificate discussed in the example above. He further stated that in a similar
application now under review, the Authority "is against" including existing facilities in a
new
Qualifying Certificate for an addition to the hotel.

Cost/Benefit Analyses

In arriving at the level and terms of tax benefits, the Authority did not adequately consider
the estimated direct and indirect costs to the Government applicable to the capital projects.
The Authority's Administrator stated that the Authority did not have an economic model
to
estimate short- and long-term direct and indirect costs to the Government inherent in large
development projects and to match these costs to potential economic benefits of the
projects.
Although the Guam Code Annotated (12 G.C.A. � 58110) and the Authority's Qualifying
Certificate Rules and Regulations allow the Authority to limit and vary the level and length
of tax benefits, the Qualifying Certificate files we reviewed did not indicate that the
Authority had considered recommending benefit rates and time periods at any levels below
the maximums allowed. As a result, the Authority could not ensure that the tax revenues
foregone plus additional related infrastructure and social costs did not negate the economic
benefits resulting from the development projects. Additionally, although the Government
had a voluntary program for beneficiary firms to contribute toward defraying such related
infrastructure costs, the Authority could not provide information on the amounts, if any,
that
were contributed by the Qualifying Certificate beneficiaries.

The Guam Code Annotated appears to give the Authority adequate legal authority to
negotiate the level of Qualifying Certificate benefits, terms, and conditions with applicants.
However, because the Authority has not often issued Qualifying Certificates with tax
benefits at levels less than the maximums allowable, it may be beneficial to amend the Code
to clearly delineate the circumstances under which lower-than-maximum-level tax benefits
can be granted. In addition, the Authority could benefit from better information and
analytical tools, such as economic models, to estimate and compare the costs of additional
demand on public infrastructure (power, water, and sewer service) and government services
(health, education, and police services) to determine the economic benefits to be provided
by the Qualifying Certificates.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Chairman and the members of the Board of Directors of the Guam
Economic Development Authority, along with the Administrator:

1. Work with the Guam Legislature to amend Title 12, Chapter 58, of the Guam Code
Annotated (the Qualifying Certificate Law) and related regulations to exclude from program
eligibility tourism projects in established tourist areas of Guam, exclude previously existing
facilities from eligibility for new Qualifying Certificates, require that businesses submit
letters of intent to apply for Qualifying Certificates no less than 180 days prior to obtaining
related building permits, and clearly define the circumstances under which lower than
maximum-level tax benefits can be granted.

We recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Guam Economic
Development Authority direct the Authority's Administrator to:

2. Establish procedures and develop methods, such as economic models and
procedures, to calculate the economic benefits of tax rebates and abatements by considering
the costs to the Government, including the amount of taxes foregone and the indirect
infrastructure and social costs involved.

3. Adopt procedures to require that negotiations with Qualifying Certificate
applicants are documented and that the negotiations include the use of all relevant analyses,
as described in Recommendation 2, to ensure that the estimated direct and indirect costs to
the Government do not negate the economic benefits of the Qualifying Certificates.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response and Office of Inspector
General Reply

In the August 10, 2001 response (Appendix 2) to the draft report from the Authority's
Chairman of the Board, the Authority concurred with Recommendations 2 and 3, and
partially concurred with Recommendation 1. Based on the response, we requested
additional
information for Recommendations 2 and 3, and requested that the Authority reconsider
Recommendation 1, which is unresolved (see Appendix 3).

Recommendation 1. Partial concurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority disagreed with
the part of the recommendation to amend the Qualifying Certificate law to exclude from
program eligibility new tourism projects in established tourist areas of Guam. As
justification for continuing to approve Qualifying Certificates for tourism projects in
established tourist areas, the Authority cited various natural and economic disasters, such
as
Typhoon Paka, the Korean Air Lines Flight 801 crash, and the Asian economic downturn,
all of which affected the tourism market on Guam. Although the Authority concurred with
the part of the recommendation to exclude previously existing facilities from eligibility for
new Qualifying Certificates, it disagreed with excluding established businesses undergoing
qualified expansion projects. The Authority also disagreed with the part of the
recommendation to require applicants to submit letters of intent to apply for a Qualifying
Certificate no less than 180 days prior to obtaining the related building permits. According
to the response, standard operating procedures that the Board approved in September 1999
require an applicant to submit a letter of intent 90 days prior to receiving a building permit
and submit the Qualifying Certificate application within 90 days of receiving the building
permit. To support the 90-day lead time, the Authority stated that investors preferred to
maintain their confidentiality for competitive protection for as long as possible, but
acknowledged that investors for construction-intensive projects usually announce plans
6 months in advance. The Authority concurred with the part of the recommendation to
clearly define the circumstances under which lower than maximum tax benefits can be
granted. The Authority criticized the report by stating that it focused entirely on tax
revenue
generation and did not consider other economic aspects such as job generation, cash
injection, circulation of money in the economy, and other taxes generated. The Authority
questioned the report's figure of 15 hotels constructed during the decade of the 1990s
without Qualifying Certificates. The Authority also stated that the finding gave "no
credence
. . . to the fact that all economic indicators provided by the Guam Visitors Bureau in the
latter
part of 1995 indicated that visitors to Guam would exceed 2 million by the year 2000."

Office of Inspector General Reply. Although not specifically stated in the body of
the report, we acknowledge that businesses participating in the Qualifying Certificate
Program contribute significantly to the economy of Guam, both in terms of net taxes paid
and employment opportunities for Guam residents. However, we believe that the Authority
should also attempt to maximize revenues for the Government of Guam to the greatest
extent
possible. This is especially important at a time when the Government of Guam is
experiencing serious financial problems and is having difficulty meeting day-to-day
operating expenses. The focus of this report has been to recommend changes to the
Qualifying Certificate Program that should help to generate additional tax revenues from
program participants.

Coincidentally, as this report was being finalized for issuance in September 2001, the Bank
of Hawaii had recently issued a report on the economy of Guam that painted a rather bleak
picture for the near-term future of Guam's hotel/tourist industry. The report cited statistics,
provided by the Guam Visitors Bureau, which indicate that in the year 2000 there were only
1.2 million (rather than the hoped for 2 million) visitors, on average only 63 percent of
Guam's 10,050 existing hotel rooms were occupied, and average room rates had dropped
to
$100 per night from $130 per night in 1999. All of these numbers suggest that, at least until
a turnaround is experienced in the Asian (and primarily Japanese) economies, the Guam
hotel/tourist industry may have reached a saturation point. Even the Authority's response
acknowledges that development in the primary Tumon tourist district may have reached a
saturation point. In that light, we made the recommendation that the Authority stop issuing
Qualifying Certificates for new projects in established tourist areas of Guam. We believe
that this would be a prudent course of action, at least until such time as there are positive
signs that the number of visitors to Guam is again on the increase and that the demand for
additional hotel rooms and tourist facilities will also increase beyond existing capacities.

We likewise believe that it would be a prudent course of action, in order to maximize tax
revenues, to refrain from granting Qualifying Certificates to hotels and other tourist
facilities
that are already operational. During the audit period, 10 of the 13 applicants that were
approved for Qualifying Certificates in the hotel/tourist business were either already
established on Guam or already committed to starting their projects, as evidenced by their
having completed financial and architectural plans and secured building permits or leases.
These businesses hired employees and invested funds to maintain a predetermined level of
service and paid the requisite taxes thereon, and would have done so even without receiving
Qualifying Certificates. Additionally, our audit disclosed (and we confirmed, despite the
questions raised in the Authority's response) that 15 hotels were constructed during the
decade of the 1990s without receiving Qualifying Certificates, that 11 of the 15 hotels met
the Authority's 100-room minimum eligibility requirement, and that 6 of those 11 hotels
also
met the Authority's requirements to be classified as "First Class Hotels." The other 5 hotels
met lesser requirements for classification as "Business Class Hotels" or "Motels."

Lastly, the amendments to the standard operating procedure that were approved by the
Authority's Board on September 24, 1999 did not include any requirement for a letter of
intent, as the Authority claimed in its response. Since our recommendation ties the lead
time
of 180 days to the building permit issuance date, the recommended requirement for a letter
of intent would involve only applicants who were constructing new or expanded facilities.
Because the Authority conceded, in its response, that investors for such projects generally
announce construction plans about 6 months (180 days) in advance, we stand by our
recommendation for a 180-day lead time for the submission of letters of intent.

Recommendation 2. Concurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that it
will continue to refine, improve, and expand its existing economic model to more
accurately
quantify all direct and indirect costs of the Qualifying Certificate Program.

Office of Inspector General Reply. We acknowledge that the Authority uses an
economic model for comparing the benefits to be gained by Guam with the tax incentives
granted Qualifying Certificate recipients. However, that model is flawed in that it does not
include infrastructure impact costs that are to be borne by the Government to upgrade such
utilities as power, water, and sewerage treatment. Also absent from the existing model are
the costs of other Government services, such as police and fire protection. As a result, the
actual cost to the Government for granting tax incentives is understated, and any decision
to
recommend approval for granting Qualifying Certificates based on the existing model will
be made without complete information.

Recommendation 3. Concurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that
since 1995, it had develop its own form for providing economic analyses of the costs and
benefits of Qualifying Certificates and that this form considers the Government's permitting
process through the Territorial Land Use Commission and the economic impact to Guam's
infrastructure. The Authority also stated that it will continue to improve its methods to
provide a more comprehensive model that will account for other direct and indirect costs
to
the Government.

Office of Inspector General Reply. Our review of the analysis form used by the
Authority for reviewing applications processed during the audit period disclosed that the
form did not quantify any of the costs that may have been identified in the Territorial Land
Use Commission's permitting process, nor does it address the economic impact to Guam's
infrastructure as claimed by the Authority in its response.

B. COMPLIANCE WITH QUALIFYING CERTIFICATES

The Guam Economic Development Authority improperly granted tax abatements of
$459,777 to beneficiaries that were not in compliance with their Qualifying Certificates,
apparently used surveillance fees of about $220,000 for purposes other than monitoring
beneficiary compliance, and authorized beneficiaries to receive additional tax benefits of
at
least $815,990 while concurrently allowing the beneficiaries to not employ about 371 Guam
residents. This occurred because the Authority did not effectively monitor Qualifying
Certificate beneficiaries to ensure that they complied with their contractual commitments,
including their agreements to employ a specified number of Guam residents. Instead, the
Authority recommended that the Governor grant the beneficiaries temporary employment
waivers. Additionally, the Authority apparently did not use available financial resources
to
employ and train compliance staff.

Legal Requirements

The Guam Code Annotated (12 G.C.A. � 58111) provides that a Qualifying Certificate
can be suspended, rescinded or revoked by the Governor, upon the recommendation of the
Authority, for fraud, noncompliance with the Certificate, bankruptcy, dissolution or death,
or noncompliance with laws and rules. Part II, Section 6, of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations provides that when the Authority has determined that the terms and conditions
of a Qualifying Certificate have been fulfilled by the recipient, the Authority "shall forward
a �Certificate of Compliance' together with a copy of the recipients' corporate income tax
return and certified financial statements to the Department of Revenue and Taxation."
Section 7a states, "When it has been determined by the Administrator that the terms and
conditions stipulated on the Qualifying Certificate, a provision of law or a requirement
imposed by these rules have not been met, then the Administrator shall notify the
Beneficiary
in writing of the specifics of the non-compliance and provide reasonable time limit in which
to correct the discrepancy."

Compliance Monitoring

We examined the Authority's compliance monitoring for 25 of the 31 Qualifying
Certificates active during fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. During the 3 fiscal years, the
Authority (1) did not have a formal inspection program in place; (2) did not perform all
required inspections; (3) did not prepare written inspection reports; and (4) issued
Certificates of Compliance authorizing five beneficiaries to receive tax benefits, although
the
beneficiaries were not in compliance. Further, the Authority used an estimated $220,000
in
surveillance fees for other Authority operations. The Administrator stated that the
Authority's compliance monitoring efforts were hindered by a shortage of trained personnel
but that efforts were ongoing to improve the monitoring program. In August 1999, the
Authority increased its monitoring efforts, and we therefore extended the period of our
review to evaluate these efforts. Although significant progress was made, as of June 30,
2000, additional improvements were still needed. As a result of the deficiencies noted, the
Government of Guam may lose tax revenues of at least $459,777.

Inspections. Section 3a of the Rules and Regulations requires that on-site inspections
be performed at least semiannually, and Section 4 requires that detailed inspection reports
be prepared within 15 working days of the dates of inspections. Despite these requirements,
during fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Authority documented that it had performed
only 31 of the 90 required on-site inspections. Since only inspection dates were
documented,
we could not determine if the reports were prepared in a timely manner.

According to the Authority's Chief Financial Officer, beginning in August 1999, the
Authority increased the amount of resources and the priority given to its compliance
monitoring program. Therefore, we extended our review to assess compliance monitoring
efforts through December 31, 1999 and the Authority's actions through June 30, 2000
related
to identified monitoring issues. Although the level and the effectiveness of monitoring
activity increased during fiscal year 1999 and the first 3 months of fiscal year 2000, as of
June 30, 2000, the Authority had not adopted a formal monitoring program, had performed
only 6 of the 38 required inspections, and had not issued written monitoring reports on
32 inspections performed during calender year 1999. The Authority's Programs and
Compliance Officer stated that the requirement for semiannual inspections could not be met
with the available staff and that the procedures to formalize the compliance monitoring
process were still in the draft stage.

Certificates of Compliance. During fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the Authority
determined that five beneficiaries were not in compliance with their Qualifying Certificates
but did not issue notices of noncompliance in a timely manner. Further, in three instances
in fiscal year 1997 and four instances in fiscal year 1998, the Authority issued Certificates
of Compliance although the recipients were not in compliance with requirements of their
Qualifying Certificates. Based on these incorrectly issued Certificates of Compliance, as
of
June 30, 2000 the beneficiaries had improperly received abatements of property taxes
and/or
rebates of income taxes totaling $459,777. The Authority subsequently recommended
granting waivers to two beneficiaries for another eight instances of noncompliance during
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (see "Temporary Employment Waivers" in this finding).

Surveillance Fees. The Guam Code Annotated (12 G.C.A. � 58144 and 58145)
provides for the recovery of extraordinary costs incurred to "process the application or
monitor the Beneficiary's performance of the terms and conditions of the Qualifying
Certificate" and for a periodic adjustment of fees "upon demonstration to the Authority by
the Administrator that the cost of performing the services covered by the fees is greater than
the amount of the fees." Although there was no specific legal requirement to restrict the use
of the surveillance fees to compliance monitoring, the cited provisions clearly allow the use
of the fees to finance the Authority's monitoring efforts, particularly since Authority
officials
cited the lack of adequate staff to effectively carry out the monitoring program. Despite
these factors, during fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Authority used only $463,706
of the surveillance fee collections totaling $683,605 to cover the costs of the compliance
process. The approximately $220,000 balance of the surveillance fees was apparently used
to fund other Authority operations. According to the Deputy Administrator and the Chief
Financial Officer, the Authority needed these funds for nonmonitoring expenses because
other funding sources were inadequate to cover the Authority's operating expenses.

Temporary Employment Waivers

During fiscal year 2000, the Authority recommended that the Governor retroactively
approve
temporary employment waivers for seven beneficiaries included in our review. The seven
beneficiaries requested the waivers after the Authority issued a total of 21 letters of
noncompliance to them during fiscal year 1999. The letters notified the beneficiaries that
they had not met the minimum employment levels required in their Qualifying Certificates.
According to the Qualifying Certificates, six of the seven beneficiaries were required to
employ a total of 1,777 Guam residents. However, the Authority determined that during
fiscal year 1999, the six beneficiaries employed an average total of only 1,504 Guam
residents, or 273 fewer than required by the Qualifying Certificates.

As of June 30, 2000, the Governor had approved four waivers and was considering two
other
waiver recommendations. The written justifications for the waivers stated that six of the
waivers were necessary because of declining economic conditions on Guam and that the
other waiver was necessary because of damage from the December 1997 Typhoon Paka.
Further, the waivers retroactively approved the beneficiaries' receipt of fiscal year 1998 tax
abatements totaling $481,495. However, we noted that the four businesses whose waivers
had expired had still not hired the required number of employees. As a result of the
waivers,
the Government of Guam lost tax revenues of at least $815,990, and as of June 30, 2000,
the six beneficiaries employed 371 fewer employees than required in their contracts, as
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Qualifying Certificate Waivers of Employment Requirements

Number of Average No. Date Calender Year Number
of Difference
Effective Employees of Employees Waiver Period Of
Employees From No.
Date of QC Required in FY 1999 Requested Waiver at
06/30/00 Required

10/24/86 280 274 11/26/99*
1999 272 8
06/12/87 360 330 02/16/00**
1999/2000 283 77
04/11/91 327 219 11/09/99*
1998/1999 223 104
05/01/96 150 133 01/12/00**
1999/2000 140 10
09/05/97 520 422 10/19/99*
1998/1999 364 156
05/01/98 140 126 01/13/00*
1999 124 16

Total 1,777 1,504
1,406 371
__________
* Waivers were approved by the Governor of Guam on March 22, 2000.
** Waivers were approved by the Authority but, as of June 30, 2000, were still awaiting the
Governor's approval.

According to Authority records, in one instance a beneficiary with a required employment
level of 520 fell below the required level for the first time in January 1998. Subsequently,
the beneficiary's employment level steadily dropped to 440 by January 1999 and to 390 by
January 2000. During the period of March 3, 1999 to November 26, 1999, the Authority
issued six letters of noncompliance to the beneficiary. On October 19, 1999, the beneficiary
applied for a temporary employment waiver for calender years 1998 and 1999. On
November 30, 1999, the Authority recommended that the waiver be approved because of
"Guam's current economic condition" and the beneficiary's operating losses following a
large investment in facility expansion. The Governor approved the waiver on March 22,
2000. Because of the waiver, the beneficiary received tax benefits of at least $237,825 for
fiscal year 1998 and at least $90,825 for fiscal year 1999. The 2-year retroactive waiver
expired on December 31, 1999, but the beneficiary continued to reduce the number of
employees rather than increase employment in compliance with the Qualifying Certificate.
As of June 30, 2000, the beneficiary's total employment was 364, or 156 (30 percent) below
the required level.

In our opinion, the Authority should have either negotiated with the beneficiaries to reduce
the value of the tax benefits received or suspended the Qualifying Certificates until such
time
as the beneficiaries meet the hiring levels. Under the law, the Governor of Guam upon
recommendation of the Authority also could revoke or the beneficiaries could relinquish
their certificates. By granting waivers to the noncompliant beneficiaries, the Authority
unilaterally gave up at least 371 jobs the beneficiaries had agreed to provide to Guam
residents while allowing the same businesses to continue receiving their full tax benefits.
We believe that these actions also could have provided the beneficiaries a competitive
advantage versus other similar businesses by allowing them to reduce their operating costs
while continuing to receive the tax benefits.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Guam Economic
Development Authority direct the Authority's Administrator to:

1. Develop and submit to the Board for adoption policies and standard operating
procedures to ensure that the Authority limits the use of surveillance fees to pay personnel
and other expenses related to monitoring the compliance of beneficiaries with the
requirements of their Qualifying Certificates and tracks surveillance costs to determine if
surveillance fees need to be adjusted.

2. Finalize and submit to the Board for adoption formal procedures for the
compliance monitoring program.

3. Provide training to compliance monitoring staff to ensure that all aspects of the
monitoring process are performed in a consistent and timely manner.

4. Develop and submit to the Board for adoption regulations to quantify the cost to
the Government of Guam and to the Guam workforce of temporary waivers and require
negotiations to ensure that beneficiaries either give up a portion of their benefits in
exchange
for waivers of certificate requirements or suspend certificate benefits pending correction of
the noncompliance issues.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response and Office of Inspector
General Reply

In the August 10, 2001 response (Appendix 2) to the draft report from the Authority's
Chairman of the Board, the Authority concurred with Recommendations 2 and 3, and did
not concur with Recommendations 1 and 4. Based on the response, we requested additional
information for Recommendations 2 and 3, and requested that the Authority reconsider
Recommendations 1 and 4, which are unresolved (see Appendix 3).

Recommendation 1. Nonconcurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that the
recommendation was unnecessary because the costs of the monitoring function exceeded
the
revenues from surveillance fees. Furthermore, Authority stated that the annual salaries and
benefits of the division manager and the four full-time staff personnel exceeded the average
annual surveillance fee collections.

Office of Inspector General Reply. The Authority's response allocated 100 percent
of the salary and fringe benefit costs for the compliance division manager and staff to
Qualifying Certificate monitoring activities and concluded that those costs exceeded
surveillance fee collections. However, in addition to the Qualifying Certificate Program,
the
compliance division was also responsible for performing compliance monitoring activities
for the Authority's loan and leasing programs. Because the surveillance fees were collected
solely under the Qualifying Certificate Program, we believe that, for comparative purposes,
only the costs associated with Qualifying Certificate compliance monitoring efforts should
be considered. Therefore, we estimated that the Authority applied about $220,000, almost
one-third of the surveillance fees collected, to other operations.

Recommendation 2. Concurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority agreed that the
adoption of formal standard operating procedures for compliance monitoring is essential,
and
stated that it had drafted standard operating procedures for compliance monitoring of the
Qualifying Certificate Program. The Authority stated that the standard operating
procedures
will add to the already-developed and approved procedures for the underwriting process,
as
developed by the Authority's Industry Development Division. The Authority also stated
that
its objective was to obtain Board approval of the compliance monitoring procedures before
the end of fiscal year 2001.

Office of Inspector General Reply. The response did not specifically state when the
Administrator will finalize and submit the compliance monitoring procedures to the Board
for approval.

Recommendation 3. Concurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority agreed that
formal training was needed for maintaining professional development in all aspects of the
work place. However it disagreed that compliance monitoring was not done in a consistent
and timely manner as a result of not having training opportunities. The Authority stated
that
monthly reports were provided to the Board on a timely basis and that annual compliance
reports were completed in accordance with Part 2 of the Rules. The Authority also stated
that the economic hardship experienced by the entire Government of Guam minimized
some
costly training opportunities, but that cross-training, statutory review, program evaluation,
and assessment training were provided to the compliance staff.

Office of Inspector General Reply. Although we commend the Authority for
providing informal, on-the-job training opportunities to the compliance staff, the response
did not indicate if and when formal training would be provided.

Recommendation 4. Nonconcurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that the
law already provides it with the authority to negotiate the specific conditions of Qualifying
Certificates. The Authority also asserted that it acted in accordance with the Qualifying
Certificate law when issuing the temporary waivers. With regard to the related finding, the
Authority stated that the correct legal citation for the finding is 12 G.C.A. � 58126, and not
12 G.C.A. � 58111.

Office of Inspector General Reply. We cited 12 G.C.A. � 58111 because this
provision lists the grounds, most notably noncompliance, for which a Qualifying Certificate
can be suspended, rescinded, or revoked. Such remedial action can be taken when the
certificate holder has not corrected its noncompliance with the Qualifying Certificate law,
applicable rules and regulations, or any condition or obligation in the Certificate after
having
been notified by the Authority in writing of such failure to comply and after having been
given by the Authority a reasonable period of time within which to correct such failure.
This
provision of the law was therefore cited as the criteria for actions the Authority should take
in enforcing compliance with the terms and conditions of Qualifying Certificates. In
contrast, 12 G.C.A. � 58126, which was cited by the Authority, relates to actions (issuance,
modification, renovation, and suspension) on Qualifying Certificates that may be
recommended by the Board to the Governor of Guam and the timetable for the Governor's
approval or disapproval of such action.

The Authority processed temporary waivers from employment or other conditions in the
Qualifying Certificates as modifications to the Certificates. In our opinion, it was not a
good
policy for the Authority to routinely recommend such modifications to ease the Certificate
terms and conditions without negotiating corresponding reductions of tax benefits granted
to the certificate holders whenever the holders did not meet the requirements it had agreed
to at the time the Qualifying Certificates were issued. The temporary waivers cited in the
finding were granted primarily to certificate holders who were chronically in a
noncompliance status. By definition, the Qualifying Certificate is a contract between the
Government of Guam and a beneficiary who has qualified for tax rebates and/or abatements
in return for meeting certain employment, investment, and other requirements. The
seemingly routine retroactive approval of waivers by the Authority, as disclosed in the
finding, negated the rationale for the beneficiary to comply with its obligations (i.e., the
terms and conditions of the Qualifying Certificate) and reduced compliance monitoring to
a "window-dressing" process. There should be a penalty (such as relinquishment or
reduction of tax benefits) associated with the waiver of Certificate requirements, especially
in the case of chronically noncompliant beneficiaries.

C. ABATEMENT OF GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES

Gross receipts taxes of more than $5 million and an undetermined amount of use taxes were
abated improperly and without verification of the amount or eligibility. This occurred
because the Guam Economic Development Authority did not ensure that the Guam
Department of Revenue and Taxation and the Guam Customs and Quarantine Agency
correctly granted Qualifying Certificate abatements of gross receipts and use taxes.
Because
of an oversight, the Authority had not initiated action to coordinate and develop monitoring
procedures with these two agencies to ensure that gross receipts and use taxes were abated
only on eligible expenditures. In addition, the Authority had misinterpreted a Board of
Director's resolution and thought it had removed the requirement to monitor contractor
claims for gross receipt tax abatements.

Gross Receipts Taxes

The Guam Code Annotated (12 G.C.A. � 58127.5) provides that gross receipts taxes may
be
abated for periods of up to 20 years (renewable for additional 20-year periods) for qualified
insurance companies. The Code (12 G.C.A. � 70105(a)) also provides that contractors
working on hotels, other tourist facilities, or affordable housing developments may also
receive gross receipts tax abatements. In both instances, eligibility for the abatements is to
be evidenced by Qualifying Certificates issued by the Authority.

Of the 31 Qualifying Certificates active as of December 31, 1999, 6 Certificates included
the
abatement of gross receipts taxes for insurance companies and 1 included the abatement of
gross receipts taxes for 20 contractors working on a hotel expansion project. To evaluate
the
abatement process and determine the amount of gross receipts taxes abated, we reviewed
available records at the Business Privilege Branch of the Department of Revenue and
Taxation.

Insurance Companies. During fiscal years 1998 and 1999, Revenue and Taxation
officials incorrectly accepted and processed claims for gross receipts tax abatements from
four of the six insurance company beneficiaries based on copies of the beneficiaries'
Qualifying Certificates that were attached to gross receipts tax returns. The Supervisor of
the Business Privilege Branch said she did not know that the Authority issued Certificates
of Compliance which were required before tax abatements should be approved. The
Deputy
Tax Commissioner, Department of Revenue and Taxation, stated that the Department did
not
have procedures for administering gross receipts tax abatement claims and that he had
understood that the Authority would draft such procedures. In addition, until May 2000,
Authority personnel had not coordinated with Revenue and Taxation gross receipts tax
personnel to assist in processing gross receipts tax abatement claims. Further, according
to
the Authority's Compliance and Internal Auditing Supervisor, the Authority had not
prepared
or adopted procedures to either monitor or process the actual granting of gross receipts tax
abatements. As a result, Revenue and Taxation officials incorrectly authorized abatements
of gross receipts taxes totaling at least $2,902,598, including $677,802 to three beneficiaries
whom the Authority had determined were not in compliance with their Qualifying
Certificates, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Insurance Company Gross Receipts Taxes Improperly Abated

Effective Amount of Taxes Abated Although Tax Revenue
Date of QC Taxes Abated Not in Compliance
Unauthorized* At Risk of Loss

12/02/97 $679,528 $171,313 $508,215
$679,528
01/01/98 1,008,749 478,774 292,605
771,379**
01/01/98 1,281,112 - 1,281,112
1,281,112
10/01/98 170,579 27,715 142,864
170,579

Total $3,139,968 $677,802 $2,224,796 $2,902,598
__________
* The Authority had not made a determination of compliance or issued certificates of
compliance on these
abatements. Therefore, some or all of these amounts may retroactively be determined to
be authorized.
** This company subsequently declared bankruptcy.

Construction Companies. On June 5, 1998, the Authority issued a Qualifying
Certificate to a corporation for a major hotel expansion project. Through the Qualifying
Certificate, 20 different contractors received special certificates authorizing each contractor
to receive a tax abatement for work related to the expansion project. The contractors were
required to certify that all tax abatements received were passed on to the hotel. Based on
documents obtained from the Department of Revenue and Taxation, as of March 31, 2000,
11 of the 20 contractors had made a total of 55 claims for abatement of gross receipts taxes.
Only 1 of the 55 abatement claims was supported by a Certificate of Compliance issued by
the Authority. Instead, the 11 contractors submitted gross receipts tax returns with copies
of the Qualifying Certificates and claimed tax abatements of at least $2,116,966. As of the
time of our review, Revenue and Taxation had processed and approved the tax returns
related
to abatements totaling $432,782 but had not yet processed the tax returns for the remaining
$1,682,184 in claimed abatements.

According to Authority personnel, the Authority had not implemented a compliance review
process because they thought that a Board of Director's resolution exempted the contractors
from all monitoring requirements. However, although Board of Director's
Resolution 99-030, approved on June 23, 1999, exempted the contractors from complying
with four Qualifying Certificate requirements, the resolution added a requirement that the
contractors were to submit statements prepared by independent accountants documenting
the
amount of expenditures qualifying for the gross receipts tax abatements. As of
June 30, 2000, the Authority had not received any of the required independent accountants'
statements. Without a review process for the tax abatement claims, the validity of the
claims
could not be determined and there was a potential for a contractor to claim abatements for
taxes based on revenues from sources other than the hotel expansion project. For example,
we noted that 4 of the 11 contractors who submitted claims had included gross receipts tax
abatements totaling $21,788 more than the Authority had initially authorized based on the
approved construction contracts provided to the Authority.

Use Taxes

The Guam Code Annotated (11G.C.A. � 28103 and � 28104) provides that an excise tax of
4 percent will be levied on the use or consumption of all property brought into Guam. In
accordance with the Code (11G.C.A. � 28105(e)), the tax is collected by the Guam Customs
and Quarantine Agency on behalf of the Department of Revenue and Taxation. The Code
(12 G.C.A. � 70105 (b)) also provides for an exemption (abatement) for property to be used
to construct, furnish, and equip hotels and tourist facilities. Lastly, the Code
(11 G.C.A. � 28105(f)) authorized the Department of Revenue and Taxation to promulgate
rules and regulations to enforce the use tax law.

During fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the Authority issued Qualifying Certificates to two
beneficiaries granting them the right to receive use tax abatements on the hotel renovation
projects. The Director of the Guam Customs and Quarantine Agency stated that Customs
did not determine and could not provide information on the total amount of use taxes abated
for the two beneficiaries because the agency collects information only on taxes collected.
The Director also said that, as of June 30, 2000, the Department of Revenue and Taxation
had not provided rules and regulations for collection of the use tax, as required by the Guam
Code Annotated.

Although specific information was not available to determine the amount of use tax
abatements, we estimated that the amount of use tax eligible for abatement for one of the
two
hotel projects was about $180,000, based on an estimated cost for furniture and fixtures of
$4.5 million and taxed at a 4 percent rate. According to a Customs official, Customs
personnel authorized companies to receive, without payment of the use tax, otherwise
taxable
property based on photocopies of their Qualifying Certificates. There were no procedures
to ensure that the recipients of the tax abatements were in compliance with the Qualifying
Certificates or that the furniture and fixtures were destined for projects included in the
Qualifying Certificates. Although the unavailability of appropriate documents prevented
us
from specifically identifying potential improper abatements, in our opinion, the lack of
adequate internal control procedures may have allowed otherwise taxable furniture and
fixtures to avoid taxation.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Guam Economic
Development Authority direct the Authority's Administrator to:

1. Coordinate with the Department of Revenue and Taxation to develop and
implement procedures to ensure that gross receipts tax abatements are granted only to
applicants who comply with their Qualifying Certificate requirements.

2. Coordinate with the Director of the Customs and Quarantine Agency to develop
and implement procedures to ensure that use tax abatements are granted only to applicants
who comply with their Qualifying Certificate requirements.

3. Develop and implement procedures to ensure that contractors submit the required
independent accountants' statements, that the statements are matched with tax abatement
claims before Certificates of Compliance are issued, and that the original Qualifying
Certificate beneficiaries are notified of the amount of tax abatements received by each
subcontractor covered under the primary Qualifying Certificates.

4. Review the questioned gross receipts tax and use tax abatements discussed in this
finding to determine whether the tax abatements were allowable and, if not allowable,
apprise the Department of Revenue and Taxation of the need to collect the improperly
abated
taxes.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response and Office of Inspector
General Reply

In the August 10, 2001 response (Appendix 2) to the draft report from the Authority's
Chairman of the Board, the Authority concurred with Recommendations 1 and 2, and did
not
concur with Recommendations 3 and 4. Based on the response, we requested additional
information for Recommendations 1 and 2, and requested that the Authority reconsider
Recommendations 3 and 4, which are unresolved (see Appendix 3).

Recommendations 1 and 2. Concurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that it
is critical for all agencies to meet regularly to develop and implement procedures not only
for the issuance of gross receipts tax exemptions, but for other tax incentives offered by the
Qualifying Certificate Program. The Authority also stated that it has regularly coordinated
with the Department of Revenue and Taxation to discuss program guidelines and the
compliance status of each beneficiaries. The Authority further stated that Qualifying
Certificate Program guidelines and policies only require the Authority to coordinate with
the
Department of Revenue and Taxation, but that the Authority will "make a more concerted
effort to involve the Customs and Quarantine Agency in its meetings and to better establish
program control measures."

Office of Inspector General Reply. Had good coordination occurred between the
Authority and the Department of Revenue and Taxation, there would not have been the
situation where beneficiaries were able to file for and obtain the abatements from Revenue
and Taxation without input from the Authority as to the beneficiaries' compliance status.
Apparently, there was inadequate communication between the two agencies as to the
requirements for abatement filing. This is why we believe that the Authority should ensure
that the coordination procedures are formalized in writing and approved by the Department
of Revenue and Taxation, the Custom and Quarantine Agency, and the Authority's Board.

Recommendation 3. Nonconcurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority agreed that
procedures are needed to ensure that the accountants' statements are matched to tax
abatement claims, and stated that this practice has been addressed in draft standard
operating
procedures. However, the Authority disagreed that a Certificate of Compliance must be
issued prior to the tax abatement claims. The Authority indicated that if the beneficiary is
found to be in noncompliance at the year-end review, the tax incentives must be reimbursed
with penalties.

Office of Inspector General Reply. Beneficiaries are already required to submit
detailed monthly reports to the Compliance Division, therefore the monthly accountants'
financial statements should not be an undue burden for the beneficiaries to submit or for the
Authority to review. Additionally, we found no indication during the audit that the
Authority
had matched the accountants' statements with the contractors' abatements.

Recommendation 4. Nonconcurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that the
recommendation should be addressed to the Department of Revenue and Taxation, but
stated
that it "does take note of this issue and will separately discuss the issue" with the
Department
of Revenue and Taxation. The Authority also stated that the Qualifying Certificate law
authorizes the Tax Commissioner of Guam to issue rules as deemed necessary to implement
the procedures outlined in Chapter 58 of the Qualifying Certificate law.

Office of Inspector General Reply. The issue is not the need for the issuance of
rules to implement the procedures outlined in the Qualifying Certificate law
(12 G.C.A. Chapter 58), but the need for the Authority to coordinate with the Department
of Revenue and Taxation regarding the questioned tax abatements discussed in the finding.
We have revised the recommendation to require that the Authority review the questioned
gross receipts tax and use tax abatements to determine whether the tax abatements were
allowable and, if not allowable, to apprise the Department of Revenue and Taxation of the
need to collect the improperly abated taxes.

D. REINVESTMENT OF TAX BENEFITS

Legally mandated investments in Guam's economy totaling at least $2.3 million may not
have taken place because the Guam Economic Development Authority did not include
language in Qualifying Certificates requiring beneficiaries to reinvest tax benefits and, for
those Certificates that included the reinvestment requirement, did not monitor the
beneficiaries' compliance. This occurred because the Authority's (1) procedures did not
require and staff neglected to include the necessary language in Certificates amended after
passage of the law requiring benefit reinvestment and (2) management was unclear on how
to determine compliance with the reinvestment requirement.

Reinvestment Requirement

The Guam Code Annotated (12 G.C.A. � 58142) requires that each recipient of a Qualifying
Certificate, except insurance carriers, invest in the Guam economy no less than 50 percent
of any taxes rebated or abated for a period of 5 years following the rebate or abatement.
Beneficiaries are also required to provide reports identifying the amounts reinvested during
each fiscal year. The law became effective on December 29, 1994, and the Authority
should
have included this requirement in all applicable Qualifying Certificates issued or amended
after that date.

During the period of December 29, 1994 to December 31, 1999, the Authority issued or
amended eight Qualifying Certificates that appear to be subject to the reinvestment
requirement law. We determined that the Authority included the required language in six
new Qualifying Certificates that were issued during this period. However, the Authority
did
not include the requirement in two Qualifying Certificates that were amended in November
1995 and June 1998, respectively. The Authority's Deputy Administrator and the Chief
Financial Officer could not explain how this oversight occurred. However, we noted that
the
Authority's Rules and Regulations and standard operating procedures for issuance of
Qualifying Certificates did not include a requirement to ensure that the required
reinvestment
clause was included in all new and amended Qualifying Certificates. The Authority's
Administrator stated that the Authority could amend the Certificates to include the 50
percent
reinvestment requirement.

Based on tax information available as of June 30, 2000, we determined that the two
beneficiaries with amended Qualifying Certificates had received rebates and abatements for
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 that totaled $3,626,027 and that the beneficiaries may receive
substantial future rebates and abatements. As a result of not including the reinvestment
clause in the two amended Qualifying Certificates, Guam's economy may lose additional
investments of at least $1,813,013 as follows:

- Effective November 28, 1995, the Authority issued an amendment to a hotel's
existing Qualifying Certificate, incorporating the hotel's new expansion and existing
facilities for an additional 5 years. The amended Certificate did not include a clause
requiring the hotel to reinvest 50 percent of tax benefits. We determined that the hotel
received corporate income tax rebates of $2,945,060 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and we
estimated that the hotel should have reinvested about $1,472,530 of the tax benefits in the
island's economy.

- Effective June 5, 1998, the Authority issued a new Qualifying Certificate to another
hotel, incorporating the hotel's new expansion and existing facilities for an additional
20 years. The new Qualifying Certificate did not include a clause requiring reinvestment
of
50 percent of tax benefits. We determined that the hotel received tax abatements and
rebates
of at least $680,967 for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999, and we estimated that the hotel
should have reinvested about $340,483 of the tax benefits in the island economy.

Reinvestment Monitoring

The Authority was unable to document that any of the six beneficiaries with the
reinvestment
clause in their Qualifying Certificates had actually reinvested the required 50 percent of
their
tax benefits because none of the six beneficiaries had submitted the required reinvestment
reports. Of the six beneficiaries, the Authority had determined that four were not in
compliance with their Qualifying Certificates for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
Therefore, only two beneficiaries were authorized to receive and did receive tax benefits.
Although the Authority began monitoring the reinvestment clause in August 1999, the
Deputy Administrator and the Chief Financial Officer said that the law was ambiguous.
The
two officials said that there are many ways to "reinvest" and that there was not a clear
definition in the law of the type of "reinvestment" that was to occur. They also said that
without more detailed guidance, the Authority would find it difficult to enforce the
reinvestment requirement. However, if the Authority does not enforce the reinvestment
provision, the beneficiaries' 5-year reinvestment period could expire without any
reinvestment occurring. As a result of not effectively monitoring and enforcing the
reinvestment clause for the six beneficiaries, Guam's economy could lose at least $526,633
of additional investments, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Required Investment of Abated/Rebated Taxes

Effective Date of Amount of Abated Reinvestment
Amount
Qualifying Certificate or Rebated Taxes
at Risk of Loss

05/01/96 $192,720 $96,360
09/05/97 860,546 430,273

Total $1,053,266 $526,633

In our opinion, if the Authority had acted in an expeditious manner to resolve questions
regarding the reinvestment law and enforced the reinvestment provision, Guam's economy
would have benefitted from additional investments. Further inaction could deprive the
economy of additional reinvestment opportunities. Although the exact definition of the
5-year reinvestment period is unclear, we presume that the period applies to the tax benefits
received on a year-by-year basis. Therefore, it is possible that the 5-year period could act
as a statute of limitations that relieves the beneficiaries of having to comply with the
reinvestment requirement for each year in order to receive that year's tax benefits.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Guam Economic
Development Authority direct the Authority's Administrator to:

1. Request that the Guam Legislature amend the Guam Code Annotated
(12 G.C.A. � 58142) to clarify the types of reinvestment to be required of Qualifying
Certificate beneficiaries and the meaning of the 5-year reinvestment period.

2. Amend the Qualifying Certificates that were issued after December 29, 1994, to
include the reinvestment requirement mandated by the Guam Code Annotated.

3. Develop and implement rules and regulations and standard operating procedures
to ensure that the Authority includes the reinvestment clause in all new and amended
Qualifying Certificates and has a process to monitor compliance with the reinvestment
requirement.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response and Office of Inspector
General Reply

In the August 10, 2001 response (Appendix 2) to the draft report from the Authority's
Chairman of the Board, the Authority concurred with Recommendations 1 and 3, and did
not
concur with Recommendation 2. Based on the response, we requested additional
information
for Recommendations 1 and 3, and requested that the Authority reconsider
Recommendation 2, which is unresolved (see Appendix 3).

Recommendation 2. Nonconcurrence.

Guam Economic Development Authority Response. The Authority stated that
because the 5-year moratorium was lifted and the first Qualifying Certificate was issued in
the summer of 1996, all Certificates include the reinvestment requirement in accordance
with
the Qualifying Certificate law. The Authority claimed that only one Qualifying Certificate
(No. 219) did not include the reinvestment provision, but that the Certificate included the
requirement that the recipient "comply with all laws of Guam and the rules and regulations
of its various agencies, including and not limited to those set out in the [Qualifying
Certificate] law, and in applicable rules and regulations." The Authority concluded that
because of this general requirement, a specific reinvestment provision was not needed.

Office of Inspector General Reply. Despite the Authority's statement, two (not one)
Qualifying Certificates did not include the reinvestment provision. The second such
Certificate (No. 169) was an amendment to a prior Certificate that was essentially a new
Certificate because it contained completely new terms and conditions and became effective
on November 28, 1995, after the December 29, 1994 effective date of the revised
Qualifying
Certificate law (P.L. 22-159). Therefore, this Qualifying Certificate also should have
included the reinvestment provision required by the new law. We acknowledge that the
general compliance provision contained in Qualifying Certificate No. 219 requires the
beneficiary to comply with provisions of the Qualifying Certificate law and applicable rules
and regulations. However, in our opinion, it would be preferable for the Authority to
amend
the two Qualifying Certificates (Nos. 219 and 169) to specifically include the reinvestment
provision.

APPENDIX 1

CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS*

Finding Area

Unrealized
Revenues
Funds to Be
Put To
Better Use

A. Approval of Qualifying Certificates
Projects in Tourist Areas
Timing of Application Filings
Negotiation of Tax Benefits

769,650

$28,528,822
24,266,430
17,966,784

B. Compliance with Qualifying Certificates
Compliance Monitoring
Temporary Employment Waivers

634,340

459,777

C. Abatement of Gross Receipts and Use Taxes
Gross Receipts Taxes

5,019,564

D. Reinvestment of Tax Benefits
Reinvestment Requirement
Reinvestment Monitoring

_________

1,472,530
265,948

Total
$1,403,990
$77,979,855

__________
*All amounts represent local funds.
APPENDIX 2

GUAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONSE

Graphic images of response not included in text file.
APPENDIX 3

STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Finding/Recommendation Reference: A.1
Status: Unresolved.
Action Required: Reconsider the recommendation and provide a
response indicating
concurrence or nonconcurrence. If concurrence is indicated, provide the
target date for working with the Legislature to amend the Qualifying
Certificate law and related regulations accordingly.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: A.2
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
establish procedures and
develop methods to include costs to the Government in the economic
analysis of Qualifying Certificates.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: A.3
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
adopt procedures to
document negotiations on Qualifying Certificates. We request that a
copy of the procedures be submitted to this office.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: B.1
Status: Unresolved.
Action Required: Reconsider the recommendation and provide a
response indicating
concurrence or nonconcurrence. If concurrence is indicated, provide the
target date for the Administrator to develop and submit to the Board for
adoption policies and standard operating procedures on limiting and
tracking the use of surveillance fees.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: B.2
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
finalize and submit
formal compliance monitoring procedures for Board adoption. We
request that a copy of the Board-approved procedures be submitted to this
office.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: B.3
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
provide formal training
to compliance staff.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: B.4
Status: Unresolved.
Action Required: Reconsider the recommendation and provide a
response indicating
concurrence or nonconcurrence. If concurrence is indicated, provide the
target date for the Administrator to develop and submit to the Board for
adoption regulations on quantifying the cost of temporary waivers and
requiring negotiations. We request that copies of the Board-approved
regulations be submitted to this office.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: C.1
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
coordinate with the
Department of Revenue and Taxation to establish procedures for
granting gross receipts tax abatements only to beneficiaries who comply
with their Qualifying Certificate requirements. We request that a copy of
the procedures be submitted to our office.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: C.2
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
coordinate with the
Customs and Quarantine Agency to establish procedures for granting use
tax abatements only to beneficiaries who comply with their Qualifying
Certificate requirements. We request that a copy of the procedures be
submitted to our office.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: C.3
Status: Unresolved.
Action Required: Reconsider the recommendation and provide a
response indicating
concurrence or nonconcurrence. If concurrence is indicated, provide the
target date for the Administrator to establish procedures for the
submission of audited financial statements by contractors, the matching
of the statements with gross receipts tax abatement claims, and the
notification of Qualifying Certificate beneficiaries of the abatements
received. We request that a copy of the procedures be submitted to our
office.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: C.4
Status: Unresolved.
Action Required: Respond to the revised recommendation,
indicating concurrence or
nonconcurrence. If concurrence is indicated, provide the target date for
the Administrator to review the gross receipts and use tax abatements
questioned in the finding to determine if they are allowable and, if not
allowable, coordinate with the Division of Revenue and Taxation to
collect the lost revenues.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: D1
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
request the Legislature
to amend the Guam Code to clarify the types of reinvestment to be
required of Qualifying Certificate beneficiaries and the meaning of the 5-
year reinvestment period.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: D.2
Status: Unresolved.
Action Required: Reconsider the recommendation and provide a
response indicating
concurrence or nonconcurrence. If concurrence is indicated, provide the
target date for the Administrator to amend Qualifying Certificates issued
after December 29, 1994 to include the reinvestment requirement
mandated by the Guam Code.

Finding/Recommendation Reference: D.3
Status: Management concurs; additional information requested.
Action Required: Provide the target date for the Administrator to
establish rules and
regulations and standard operating procedures to include the
reinvestment clause in all new and amended Qualifying Certificates and
a process for monitoring compliance with the investment requirement.