World
SEC gives over $700,000 reward to a whistleblower of high frequency trading: report
The US regulator is awarding more than $700,000, to a whistleblower who conducted a detailed analysis that led to a successful SEC enforcement action against NYSE 
 
Eric Hunsader, a vocal critic of high-frequency traders, had said the Securities and Exchange Commission is sending him a $750,000 whistleblower award, says a report from MarketWatch.
 
According to the report , Eric Hunsader of Nanex LLC provided information to the SEC that led to a first ever fine against an exchange. "On 15 January 2016, the SEC  confirmed it would pay 'more than $700,000' to a whistleblower that had provided the 'independent analysis as well as independent knowledge of securities law violations' that led to a $5 million fine for the New York Stock Exchange in 2012," the report says.
 
In a release, Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, said, "The voluntary submission of high-quality analysis by industry experts can be every bit as valuable as first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing by company insiders. We will continue to leverage all forms of information and analysis we receive from whistleblowers to help better detect and prosecute federal securities law violations.”
 
By law, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose information that might directly or indirectly reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
 
However, Hunsader showed MarketWatch a letter from the SEC that confirmed the approval of his award and told MarketWatch he was the recipient of a pending award for the tip that led to the NYSE fine. This is the first whistleblower award by the SEC under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to reward an independent third party for analysis of a potential securities law violation, the report says.
 
The SEC’s whistleblower program has paid more than $55 million to 23 whistleblowers since the program’s inception in 2011. Whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the SEC with unique and useful information that leads to a successful enforcement action may be eligible for an award.  Whistleblower awards can range from 10% to 30% of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million.  All payments are made out of an investor protection fund established by Congress that is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators. No money is taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards.

User

COMMENTS

Meenal Mamdani

1 year ago

I urge India's tax service to institute such a whistle blower program.

If the identity of the whistle blower is kept confidential, the tax service will be able to catch a lot of people like doctors, lawyers, retail shop owners, for under-reporting their income.

The award should be given high publicity to encourage many more to keep a close watch on the wrong doers.

manoharlalsharma

1 year ago

only JEWELER can acknowledge the true value of DIMOND but,poor country like ours do not know price of INTELLIGENCE.

7 flaws in the government’s EPF Tax
The government has failed to think through the implication of the new tax proposal of pension plans. Instead of creating uniformity, it has created more disparity
 
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, in the union Budget 2016, announced “measures for moving towards a pensioned society.” Towards this goal, he believed “that the tax treatment should be uniform for defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans.” While the government may be moving towards uniformity, it seems they did not think through their statements and ideas enough which led to issuing contradictory clarifications and then considering a partial roll back. Moneylife highlights seven points that are flawed and contradictory in the government’s goal and their proposal.
 
1. A “uniform pensioned society” for only 6 million out of 37 million EPF subscribers
In its clarification, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) stated that “out of around 3.7 crores contributing members of EPFO as on today, around 3 crore subscribers” are within the statutory wage limit of Rs15,000 per month. For this category of people, there is not going to be any change in the new dispensation.” This effectively means that 80% of the EPF subscribers will be out of the new proposal. Why does the government want uniformity for just 20% of the salaried society?
 
2. Do highly-paid employees need pension security?
The MoF states that, “here are about 60 lakh contributing members who have accepted EPF voluntarily and they are highly - paid employees of private sector companies.” The new EPF tax proposal will apply to this section of employees. According to the government, “such employee can withdraw without tax liability provided he contributes 60% in annuity product so that pension security can be created (emphasis added) for him according to his earning level. However, if he chooses not to put any amount in Annuity product the tax would not be charged on 40%.”
 
Do “highly-paid” individuals need to be indirectly forced to subscribe an annuity product for “pension security”? Can’t they decide what is good for them? Don’t the people earning less than Rs15,000 actually need the “pension security”? Secondly, if a person does not wish to invest in low return annuity products, why penalise him by taxing 60% of the corpus? How does help in “financial protection to senior citizens”?
 
3. Confusion about wage limit of Rs15,000 per month
The MoF states that, “the main category of people for whom the EPF scheme was created are the members of EPFO who are within the statutory wage limit of Rs.15,000 per month.” It is not clear how this rule applies. Manoj Nagpal CEO, Outlook Asia Capital, in a tweet to Jayant Sinha, Minister of State for Finance, and revenue secretary Hasmukh Adhia, asks as to how this Rs15,000 determined. Is it on the salary of the employee when he joins the EPFO, or the average salary of the employee over 35 years, or is it the salary at retirement?
 
Some interpret it as when an individual’s salary is less than Rs15,000, there will be no tax on contribution, and when the salary crosses Rs15,000 tax will apply on the contribution from then. This leads to immense confusion and one will need to track his salary as well from now on to calculate the corpus, which will fall under this provision. Here again, there is no parity with NPS, where even the general public can invest.
 
4. If the statutory wage limit of Rs15,000 per month applies for EPF, why not NPS?
The government’s goal of creating a uniform pensioned society is not achieved. With the government trying to promote the National Pension System (NPS) aggressively, why does the statutory wage limit not apply to employees contributing to NPS? The government offered a tax break for NPS subscribers, and ended up taxing EPF as well. This does make NPS a contender among other retirement products with the much needed tax break, but why have differential rules when trying to create uniformity among pension products. If employees get to choose between EPF and NPS, those with a salary of less that Rs15,000 pm, may most probably choose EPF because of safety and the tax break.
 
5. Different tax rules for products which invest in similar asset classes
Among the Section 80C eligible investments, if you invest in an equity-linked savings schemes (ELSSs) or growth-oriented mutual fund retirement plans, where equity allocation is greater than 65%, long term capital gains are tax free. If you invest in the income-oriented plans of mutual fund retirement plans, long term capital gains are taxed at 20% with indexation. Even the corpus under unit linked insurance plans (ULIPs) and traditional insurance plans are tax free, subject to certain conditions. However, under NPS—a similar product in which the subscriber can invest up to 50% in equity—only “40% of the total corpus withdrawn at the time of retirement will be tax exempt”.
 
PPF is tax-free, while under the new proposal, only 40% of the EPF corpus will be exempt from tax. Both these pay a similar rate of interest.
As it is, investors are left confused with the hoards of different financial products. Why is the government differentiating between taxation of similar financial products adding to the confusion of savers?
 
6. No clarity on NPS proposal
The budget mentions that only for employees contributing to NPS, 40% of the corpus will be exempt from tax. Does this mean that if anyone who voluntary contributes to NPS will not be eligible for this tax benefit? Does it mean that the proposal is only applicable for the corporate NPS model? The budget memorandum states “any payment from National Pension System Trust to an employee on account of closure or his opting out of the pension scheme referred to in Section 80CCD, to the extent it does not exceed forty percent of the total amount payable to him at the time of closure or his opting out of the scheme, shall be exempt from tax.” Why is there a benefit given only to corporate employee? What if a self-employed professional wishes to contribute to NPS, why should he not get a tax benefit?
 
7. Rule does not apply to employees of government and semi-government organisations local authorities, railways, universities and educational institutions and are exempt
 
The EPF tax proposal is applicable to only private sector employees. This means that all other employees, of government and semi-government organisations, local authorities, railways, universities and recognised educational institutions are exempt from this. Here again there is no uniformity in applicability of the provision.
 
All these flaws were compounded with the ham-handed manner in which the clarifications were offered. In an interview to NDTV, when asked whether the proposal applies to PPF, Jayant Sinha stated that this rule will be applicable to all pension funds, leading to the conclusion that PPF will be taxed. Later, in another interview, Mr Hasmukh Adhia clarified that PPF will be exempt. However, he surprised everyone by saying that only the interest on 60% of the contributions will be taxed. A clarification issued later stated that they are only considering this proposal.
 
The revenue secretary Hasmukh Adhia even claimed that the tax “will be only on the interest component and not on the principal. If a change has to be made in the finance bill, then we will do it to clarify that the entire corpus will not be taxed but only the accumulated return component.” The clarification issued by the MoF contradicted him stating that “We have received representations today from various sections suggesting that if the amount of 60% of corpus is not invested in the annuity products, the tax should be levied only on accumulated returns on the corpus and not on the contributed amount. The Finance Minister would be considering all these suggestions and taking a view on it in due course.”
 
This just goes to show that there is much confusion among the government itself in understanding the proposal. The government has not only, not thought through the concept, but it also remains that nobody knew what exactly the rules were. 

User

COMMENTS

Raja Laks

1 year ago

In another article before budget, I commented Arun Jaitely is a Congress minister who has no integrity and doesn't care about social media or 'mango' men.
This is proved.
Arun Jaitely is just a corporate broker. Even Modi cannot influence him. AJ responds only to Ambani/Adani.
Kill the legitimate tax payers from private sectors in all possible ways. Continue like this and next election, people will vote for Rahul Gandhi. Thats exactly what Arun Jaitely wants.

Kamal Garg

1 year ago

One of the most horrendous tax proposal ever seen in India. This Govt is hell bent on squeezing every penny from its citizens in the name of tax collection.
(1)Is this the way for reducing or containing your fiscal deficit target.
(2) What about expenditure efficiency. Has any body bothered about the forever grant of Pay Commission without bothering about the efficiency and work output.
(3) This Govt wants people to surrender LPG subsidy. What about MPs getting highly subsidised food in Parliament Canteen at a throwaway prices.
(4) In any case, whether you withdraw balance 60% as lump sum or in the form of annuity, in both the cases, one has to pay tax on the full amount. In the first case, one has to pay full 30% tax immediately. And in the second case, still one has to pay marginal tax on monthly annuity paid.
This Govt has disappointed its citizens on every count in the last two years.
It seems that Arun Jaitley can never get his maths and policies right. Most of his Policy announcements have failed only because he has no idea of grass root working in this country.

nginx

1 year ago

The answer to all these questions is simple. The government is talking out of its ass, trying to justify squeezing even more tax from the already beaten down salaried middle class because it's too gutless to widen the tax base by bringing in business moguls and sharks into the tax net.

Beena Kothari

1 year ago

This is a very bizarre point came up in this product. People who earn more than Rs. 15,000 and making voluntary contribution to PF are wise enough to plan life after retirement. Its unfair to put force by the government as to how they want to make an investment of that corpus. This should change. I wish this was thought through rather than creating confusion in the name of "beneficial policy change towards pension society"!!

SUJIT TALUKDER

1 year ago

This is the Ache Din for the pvt sector employees. When govt fails to unearth black money, it has increased multi-layer taxation of the same income. Not only EPF, also taxation of dividend in excess of Rs 10.00 lakh is triply taxed. Once in the profit of the company, then DDT on the dividend declaration and then again on dividend recipient.
I don't understand how this govt. claims certainty in tax laws. This govt. measures are even more uncertain than the previous one.
And Mr Modi says, Acche Din Aa Gaye.

Anand Vaidya

1 year ago

I think the govt is JEALOUS that a part of the money they can see is not being taxed at any stage, and it burns them like concentrated acid.

So this hare-brained downright stupid plan was conceived....

tapan sur

1 year ago

If you cant convince, confuse?

SuchindranathAiyerS

1 year ago


Perhaps the Government deliberately introduced the ugly and vicious proposal in order to have something to retract?

DBTL for LPG and Aadhaar: Big ‘hollow’ claims on small gains
It is the connection regularisation program, unconnected to DBTL or Aadhaar, which has helped remove invalid connections. Massively inflated notional savings from these connections are being presented as success of DBTL and or Aadhaar
 
While accepting that there is no statutory status to Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the numbering agency for Aadhaar, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley wants to push the unique ID number to all subsidies and monetary benefits to large section of beneficiaries. The main contention used by the Narendra Modi government for pushing Aadhaar is how it helped save 'huge' amount in the Direct Benefit Transfer of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (DBTL) scheme. However, both the claims, like weeding out bogus or fake connections through DBTL and Aadhaar, and the savings are without any substance. In fact, an analysis done by International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reveals hollowness in the government's claims.
 
"There have been three principal changes to LPG subsidy policy since 2012: the introduction (and subsequent revisions) of the household cylinder cap, the implementation of connection validation and regularisation measures to identify and block invalid connections, and changes to the LPG subsidy disbursement mechanism DBTL or PAHAL. It is the connection regularisation program, which in no way required the introduction of either DBTL or Aadhaar, which has overwhelmingly been responsible for the identification and removal of invalid connections and associated consumption. These connections are now being presented as having been identified and blocked due to DBTL and or Aadhaar in FY2014–15 and a massively inflated notional saving calculated on this basis, when in almost all cases they were identified and blocked through processes unrelated to either initiative—in many cases several years prior to their (re)introduction," the report from IISD says.
 
In a talk on national TV channel, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Monday had said government will soon pilot a Bill to effectuate statutory status to UIDAI so that Aadhaar is mandatory. This is in contrast with the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of not making Aadhaar number mandatory for availing benefits of government schemes. Jaitley has reportedly said that at a time when the government is determined to wipe out pilferage in distribution of subsidy meant for the rightful claimants, a unique number linked to bank account of the claimant is necessary.
 
However, IISD says, "The misrepresentation of the impact of direct transfer and of the role of the Aadhaar program within it are extremely damaging to the effective design and public oversight and accountability of subsidy reform policy in India." 
 
Both the cylinder cap and connection regularization are simple and cost-effective initiatives to implement, therefore delivering a significant net fiscal saving and, in the case of a cylinder cap, immediately improving the highly regressive distribution of the existing subsidy, IISD added. 
 
From 1 April 2015, the Central Government is distributing subsidy for LPG scheme through DBTL or PAHAL. Importantly, DBTL does not remove the LPG subsidy, but simply changes the mechanism by which it is delivered. There is a series of statements and media briefings by government and oil company representatives about humongous savings through the DBTL scheme. On 2 July 2015, the Chief Economic Advisor (CEA) had claimed an estimated savings of Rs12,700 crore from the scheme. 
 
Later, the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoPNG), in a clarification, said the claimed benefit from DBTL for FY2014-15 work out Rs14,672 crore based on its estimates of sales to fake or bogus connections. The Ministry did not offer any calculation of subsidy component on such connections. 
 
"As on 1 April 2015, there were 18.19 crore registered LPG Consumers and 14.85 crore active consumers implying a gap of 3.34 crore consumers which are duplicate / fake / inactive accounts blocked under PAHAL Scheme and related initiatives. If we take into account the quota of 12 cylinders per consumer and the average LPG subsidy of Rs336 per cylinder for the year 2014-15, estimated savings in LPG subsidy due to the blocking of 3.34 crore accounts work out to Rs14,672 crore, during that year," the MoPNG had said in a release issued on 12 October 2015.
 
 
However, IISD says this claim is far from truth or facts. "The Ministry’s latest figure rests firstly on the claim that the introduction of DBTL blocked a total of 3.34 crore LPG connections for the full financial year. Given the stated parameters of the program this is, self-evidently, a technical impossibility. DBTL was only introduced nationwide in January 2015, nine months into the financial year, and was only mandatory in a total of 8% of districts for six weeks or from mid-February to end-March 2015. To the extent that DBTL was responsible for the identification and blocking of any irregular connections in FY2014-15, this effect was therefore limited to the period in which DBTL was in operation, which represented a small fraction of the full financial year."
 
"In addition, publicly available information clearly demonstrates that DBTL was not responsible for identifying and blocking 3.34 crore connections or even a significant fraction of this figure, during any part of the financial year. Instead, the majority of the connections formally identified and blocked as of 31 March 2015 and presented as blocked by DBTL in the Ministry press release, were blocked prior to the nationwide introduction of DBTL, and through methods entirely unrelated to DBTL or Aadhaar," IISD said.
 
Plugging “Leakages”: Why Aadhaar is not sudhaar
 
IISD said, applying the connection-based methodology adopted in the Ministry’s release, and using publicly available information, it is possible to calculate the approximate additionality delivered by DBTL through the identification and blocking of irregular connections in FY2014-15 and the maximum associated saving in subsidy expenditure. Majority of potentially irregular connections identified for regularization were identified through list-based deduplication—a process unrelated to DBTL. The only mechanism for identifying and blocking potentially irregular connections that was specific to the DBTL program, as implemented, was Aadhaar-based deduplication.
 
Within much media reporting of the DBTL program, there has been a conflation of direct transfer with the controversial Aadhaar program. IISD said, it is important to emphasize that the direct benefit transfer modality does not require any linkage with Aadhaar in order to function, and that Aadhaar was effectively irrelevant to the operation of the DBTL program, serving mainly to increase the costs of implementation and therefore reducing any potential fiscal gain from the introduction of direct transfer. The government’s own figures have consistently demonstrated that the maximum number of potential duplicates identified in LPG databases through Aadhaar-based deduplication is about 1% or less of total connections assessed—a figure which may relate to an even smaller percentage of actual consumption, it added.
 
Data released by the Ministry of Finance indicates that as of 1 April 2015 there were 8.5 crore LPG customers linked to Aadhaar— over half of whom had been linked as part of the previous implementation of DBTL by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in FY2013-14. 
 
IISD said, "Assuming that around 3.5 crore connections were newly linked to Aadhaar prior to 1 April 2015 due to the PAHAL Scheme, that identification and blocking of potentially irregular connections occurred almost immediately upon registration, and taking into account the staggered nature of connection registration and differential monthly per-cylinder subsidy rates, the maximum gross saving in subsidy expenditure (i.e. before accounting for costs) from Aadhaar-based deduplication in FY2014-15 can therefore be estimated at about Rs12 to Rs14 crore—less than 0.1% of the government’s most recent stated estimate using the connection-based methodology."
 
"In comparison," IISD said, "on the basis of about 1.40 crore to 1.45 crore registered connections by the middle of FY2012-13, simple list-based deduplication (as outlined http://www.informatics.nic.in/uploads/pdfs/a9fdca31_LPG.pdf and http://petroleum.nic.in/docs/lpg/new%20inititive.pdf) reportedly identified 18–19% of total connections and over 20% of total active connections, assuming around 1 crore registered connections were inactive as potentially irregular connections to be regularised or blocked. In other words, list-based deduplication was around 15 to 20 times more effective in identifying irregular connections than the Aadhaar-based method, while imposing less than 1% of the equivalent cost of implementation to both government and beneficiaries and raising none of the attendant issues regarding fundamental rights."
 
In short, IISD says, non-DBT-based reforms are potentially faster, more equitable and more cost effective. "In the case of LPG, the path to substantive subsidy reform is clear—reinstatement of a realistic per-household cylinder cap, adjustment of the per-cylinder price-to-subsidy ratio, a crash program of access extension to all non-connected households, and rapid expansion and formalization of access to smaller cylinders, both subsidised and unsubsidised). In the case of other subsidized products, such as kerosene and food grains, current and previous administration’s emphasis on direct transfer has similarly inhibited the introduction of potentially simpler, more equitable and more cost-effective reforms, and come at a substantial opportunity cost both to the poor and to the wider economy. A commitment to the timely and accurate provision of data is a necessary first step," the analysis concluded.

User

COMMENTS

LALIT SHAH

1 year ago

some knowledgeable person must reveal myth behind Gas subsides what is actual production cost how much taxes government collecting
As per my sense in petrol diesel government charges highest excise vat and other taxes
so i request please if u have knowledge please revel for public interest

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)