Officers in HK:                         Mr. Jean Chouinard, Mr. Kim Le Van

                        Mdm Agnes Nyugen, Ms. Leslie Stoianov

 

It was not a surprise when the officer pointed out there’s a big asset problem.  The officer confirmed that it is not possible to consider the market value (appraisal report) of the property.  The BIQ rule is very clear.  The property is under PA and spouse (sales contract).  The officer accepted 50% of the price paid by the PA as his/her asset.  The officer said the source and accumulation of fund cause no problem.  Management experience is clear.  The major problem was the PA doesn’t have enough assets required by the QIIP.  The officer said the PA was short of CAD40,000.

 

 

The signature on income certificate was not certified authentic by notary public.

 

The difficulty in the file was that the PA is not a shareholder (job title GM).  However, he/she could obtain 40% of the net profit above RMB500,000 per year.  The PA had to justify what he/she was doing in order to get a good “deal”.  The officer verified the accomplishments of the PA in details, including business contracts signed by PA, etc.

 

As expected, the officer spent the entire interview asking questions about management experience.  The PA followed lawyer’s advices and brought many documents supporting his/her managerial experience and decision power, e.g. contract (translated), expenses approval, etc.

 

The officer told the PA that the immigration consultant should have updated the PNW form to reflect the current balance of the PA’s bank accounts and sworn statement.

 

The major issue was the source of funds for the Guakao period.  The PA provided many documents to prove, e.g. bank history records showing profit distribution received, internal financial statements and audit reports for Guakao period.

 

 

The PA received bonuses (1994-1998) according to the factory performance (sales).  The officer said he/she could not validate the income without the factory’s financial report.

 

The PA was confused with the profit distributed and undistributed profits (could not show the relevant information in the financial statement). 

 

 

 

Questions about management experience were easy.  The PA brought many documents, contracts signed.  The PA briefly explained some of projects and showed pictures.  

 

Management Experience (cont’d)

Despite lawyer’s advice at briefing, the PA was not knowledgeable about the finances (figures in audit reports) of the company.  The PA admitted at the interview that he/she is employee of the Finance Director who has power to sign cheques of the company (PA does not).  The PA does not know the names of all the shareholders.  The PA could not explain in details his/her job duties as GM (officer asked several times), e.g. could not talk about the budget details, budget amount, explained about sales aspect only impressed the officer that the PA is in fact a Super-salesman earning commission, the PA does not decide the sales objective.  Thus, for the officer, the PA does not have any control over the finance and operations.

 

 

The officer asked for documents to support the PA’s income (1999-2003, employed as GM).  The PA showed bank records.  The officer complained about the fact that the bank records were not provided to BIQ before the interview.

 

The PA invested RMB 5.4M to increase capital (RMB2.4M “dividend” received before 2003 plus mother’s donation RMB 3M).  At the end of the interview the officer said that the PA was not shareholder before 2003 so the PA could not have received “dividend” and mother’s donation could not be considered in the origin of fund.  The lawyer explained that it was only a technicality to use the word “dividend”, “bonus” or “commission” (PA received 70% of profit 1999-2003).  The bank records (1999-2003) proved the PA received the income.  According to the lawyer, playing of words is not reasonable to refuse the application.  The bank records were not submitted before the interview, the officer told that he/she did not have time to look at the bank proofs before and he/she’d analyze this proof carefully after the interview.  The lawyer said that RMB 3M donation has been withdrawn from the PA’s asset in the PNW form and further explained a lot of people (given example of famous businessman in Quebec) received donation from family to start-up a company.  With similar situation, another BIQ officer (name of officer provided) decided to accept the explanation and did withdraw the donation from asset.  The officer took notes of lawyer’s comment.  The officer might double check with other BIQ officer.  At this point, we have to wait for the officer’s decision.

 

There’s no other document (e.g. resolution of the shareholders, dividend receipts for 1998-now) to support the PA’s income.

 

The PA has a bank history of almost 10 years as well as decision on bonuses and bonus receipts, the source and accumulation of funds was no problem.

 

The PA was not convincing since he/she could not remember the bonus received since 1998.  Also, proof of personal income tax concerns his/her employees and does not prove that the PA paid taxes on his income and bonuses.

 

 

The PA brought 3 years’ tax receipts of EIT, the officer calculated the tax payment for 2004 to see if it matches with the financial report.  The officer also asked if the PA has the tax payment in 1999 and 2000.

 

The PA did not have the whole year EIT tax receipts for latest 3 years.  The officer was very clear with the PA that he/she was expecting to have all the tax receipts on the date of interview because they’re on the BIQ list.

 

Certificate from tax bureau to confirm the company paid all the taxes was not notarized.

 

The PA said he personally did not pay the personal income tax on dividends received.  His/Her company did.

 

The PA declared that his/her cash at bank reflects the dividends received. ; No bank history records (1999-2005).  The PA admitted that he/she could not provide any proof of receipts of income (RMB 1.8M and RMB3.36M dividends) or taxes paid.  The PA did not know the amount of dividends.  The PA explained he/she hires an accountant to take care of the finances and financial statements are too technical for him/her.

 

According to the tax policy, the company is exempted from corporate income tax but need to pa first and they refund the money afterwards.  But the PA explained that in fact the company does not need to pay at all.  To keep things simple, the tax bureau has instructed that there’s no need to disburse the tax money.  A letter from the tax bureau to confirm this is requested by the officer.

 

 

The PA, even if he/she has a tendency to talk too much, has explained well.  But PA must try to respond to simple question with direct answer.

 

To do a list or index of documents (each document holder/folder), it would make the PA easier to retrieve his/her documents at the interview efficiently.

*****