By Neil Hartnell

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Briland tourism operator’s US partner refused to pay $800,000-plus in unpaid Bahamian taxes because the amount demanded was “completely bogus” and would result in a “gross overpayment” if settled with the Department of Inland Revenue.

Legal documents obtained by Tribune Business reveal that Pablo Conde, who is embroiled in an increasingly bitter legal battle over the Conch & Coconut tour operator, destination management and visitor “concierge” business, argued “it would be crazy to pay a massive tax bill now” over what he asserted was “a completely inflated and inaccurate demand” for outstanding VAT and Business Licence fees.

These disclosures have emerged just as his now-estranged Bahamian business partner, Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, has filed a revised application seeking a Supreme Court declaration that would bar Mr Conde from any involvement in Conch & Coconut’s ownership, operations and management on the basis that he is forbidden from doing so by The Bahamas’ National Investment Policy.

Mr Gibson’s latest legal move is based on the fact that Mr Conde, as a US citizen, cannot have an ownership interest in Conch & Coconut on the basis that it is a business operating in a sector purportedly reserved for 100 percent exclusive Bahamian control under the National Investment Policy. As a result, he is arguing that his former business partner should be “estopped from claiming/asserting ownership and/or control” of the Harbour Island-based tourism business.

And he is also alleging that, by advertising real estate rentals on Harbour Island without the necessary real estate broker or salesman licence, Mr Conde is violating the Real Estate (Brokers and Salesman) Act 1995. “The Government of The Bahamas has a national policy which states that certain businesses are reserved for Bahamian nationals only and foreigners cannot own, operate and/or control those businesses,” Mr Gibson’s amended originating application asserts.

“The businesses reserved for Bahamians generally include wholesale and retail operations, real estate practice and property management operations, domestic advertising and public relations firms, shallow water scalefish operations, public transportation (including locally solicited charter boat tours), private boating excursions, land/sea tours, private charters (land/sea), private schedules, rental of golf carts and other vehicles, inter and intra island transportation of passengers and cargo, clothing/fabrics/accessories (retail), art, mate and captain services, food caterers, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and bone fishing guides.”

Asserting that he owns 90 percent of Conch & Coconut, the Bahamian operation, Mr Gibson added: “In accordance with Bahamian law, the defendants are not Bahamian citizens/companies and therefore are not allowed to own, operate and/or control any of the businesses reserved for Bahamians. In accordance with Bahamian law, the defendants, not being Bahamian citizens/companies, are not allowed to claim/assert ownership, operation and/or control of any of the businesses reserved for Bahamians.

“Further, the defendants did not obtain governmental approval including, but not limited to, National Economic Council, Bahamas Investment Authority, Department of Inland Revenue (Business Licence) and Central Bank (exchange control) to operate the businesses of the claimants, which are businesses reserved for Bahamians. The defendants should be estopped from claiming/asserting ownership and/or control of the claimants’ businesses which are businesses reserved for Bahamians.”

The relationship between Mr Gibson and Mr Conde appears to have fractured after the Department of Inland Revenue’s May 2023 raid on Conch & Coconut, which resulted in the company being temporarily shut down with some assets confiscated over $1.12m in unpaid taxes. Although operations resumed after a partial payment was made, Mr Gibson’s legal filings allege that he and his businesses “still have a tax obligation in excess of $800,000”.

He claims that an October 2023 agreement struck with Mr Conde, whereby he would acquire the assets of the Bahamian operations via a a so-called lease agreement from his erstwhile US partner, obligated the latter to pay the outstanding tax debts owed to the Department of Inland Revenue. However, documents seen by Tribune Business show that - while Mr Conde disputed the tax authority’s findings - he failed to pay the full sum into escrow as required by Bahamian law so that Conch & Coconut could mount a Tax Appeals Commission challenge.

Mr Gibson’s former US partner, in a June 6, 2024, e-mail even alleged that Conch & Coconut was owed a $100,000 refund by the Department of Inland Revenue based on work and calculations performed by Phylese Hanna, a Bahamian accountant, who was hired to assess the tax demand and penalty’s accuracy. However, Mr Conde’s failure to settle the tax debt, and fulfill his obligations under the agreement with Mr Gibson, appeared to enrage the latter’s father, Scott Silverman.

He accused Mr Conde, as the more experienced businessman, of exploiting and taking advantage of his son via the October 2023 agreement, which was not reviewed by himself or Conch & Coconut’s Bahamian attorney, former Senator Darron Pickstock, now the PLP’s Golden Isles by-election candidate. Mr Silverman alleged that both he and Mr Pickstock were “mysteriously removed” from the negotiations.

Other e-mails show Mr Pickstock was asked to negotiate a settlement of the tax liabilities with the Department of Inland Revenue, and it appears that by early 2025 he had made progress on a proposed resolution that required a $100,000 upfront payment with the balance to be paid-off over five years.

Mr Silverman, in a May 22, 2024, e-mail, demanded that Mr Conde “be a man of his word” over the tax debt and noted the failure to purse a Tax Appeals Commission hearing. “I understand that the balance is now in active collections as the appeal did not occur because Inland Revenue did not grant our request to honour the initial payment - approximately $370,000 as collateral/ bond for the full amount owed, which is required before an appeal can occur,” Mr Silverman added.

“If you want to proceed with an appeal, fine, but the full amount must be paid now - with or without an appeal. Please confirm that you’ll pay it with priority as time is of the essence. I further understand that (still) no agreement has been signed between you and Shaq regarding the future business.

“Also, cash flow remains flowing 100 percent through the Miami LLC with the weekly/ bi-weekly wires going to Ltd [in The Bahamas]. This was supposed to stop in order to avoid the licensing and fronting issues alleged by the Government over a year ago and publicised in The Tribune. I’ve been informed that at least 85 percent of revenue must flow through The Bahamas.”

An increasingly frustrated Mr Silverman, having received no reply, wrote again to Mr Conde three days’ later. “Given the situation, I will no longer sit idly by and watch my son make practically nothing from Conch & Coconut or Pink Sands while being on the hook for a $1m-plus tax bill related to your business. No more AJ or Jorge or Prime Minister BS,” he said. “It’s time for you to pay the tax bill.

“Conch & Coconut and Pink Sands are not doing business legally in The Bahamas; it behooves you to resolve this ASAP. Please confirm that you will do this and a specific timeline. The tax must be paid ASAP and I’ll await your confirmation but, in the meantime, I will be working with Shaq to ensure the business is legally operating….

“I could go on and on, but I’m now on this and will not let go as I’m not sure how you live with yourself given the position you’ve put Shaq in. I’ve run many businesses over the years and I cannot contemplate how you can stick a close friend of yours with a tax bill like this without taking responsibility and curing.”

Mr Silverman then alleged, in a May 30, 2024, e-mail that Mr Conde applied “undue pressure” to get Mr Gibson to sign the October 2023 agreement before it was reviewed by himself or Mr Pickstock. He again reiterated that Conch & Coconut’s bid to appeal the $1.12m tax demand, and over $800,000 still owing, had been denied.

“Why should you be able to make your payments on the assets while not making payments on taxes? Again, one sided and unfair to Shaq,” Mr Silverman wrote. “As Shaq owns the assets, perhaps he should consider selling them to pay the taxes? I’ve suggested this but he’s hesitant due to his desire for Conch & Coconut to continue.

“As far as Conch & Coconut continuity, Shaq continues to receive only $3,000 per month - that’s it, yet has a $1m tax obligation in ‘active collections’.” Mr Conde finally replied on June 6 , 2024, to explain his position and vehemently deny the allegations that he took advantage of, and exploited, his now former Bahamian business partner.

As for the unpaid taxes, Mr Conde asserted: “We are not going to pay a massive tax bill that we have already, based on various professional opinions, determined to be completely inflated and inaccurate until we have exhausted all potential avenues of relief. As Shaq knows, the accountant discovered last year that the formula used by the authorities to calculate the liability is completely bogus.

“In fact, based on her calculations, the [Bahamian operation] is entitled to a refund of approximately $100,000. As Shaq also knows, we have been actively working to overturn the tax bill and secure a massive reduction of the total liability down to what the company is rightfully required to pay, which is nowhere near what was initially assessed.

“Frankly, it would be crazy to pay the tax bill now. It would be a gross overpayment, that money would never be seen again, and the significant efforts undertaken to date to correct this problem will have been for nothing…. We are not going to overpay a fabricated tax bill that I have been actively working to correct.”

Mr Conde followed up two days’ later, seeking to reassure, and said: “The VAT matter is very much the primary concern, and I will continue to relay information as it is received. I have always shared all the details with Shaq and kept him informed and will continue to do so. It is my understanding that any collections are on hold while this process plays out…. I have already given Shaq my word to pause any lease payments until the VAT matter is resolved.”

However, in the absence of any further progress, Mr Silverman informed Mr Conde on October 22, 2024, that Mr Pickstock had been asked to secure a settlement with the Department of Inland Revenue. “Shaq is now actively getting collections calls from Inland Revenue,” he wrote. “After our call in June, you asked for 30 days to straighten this out through your mystery man. Obviously, that didn’t work and it’s four months later. Interest etc is being tacked on.

“We’ve asked Darron Pickstock to negotiate a settlement/ payment plan on Shaq’s behalf. Once achieved, we can figure out how that effects finances/ lease payments etc.” The Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien attorney and partner appeared to make some headway based on a January 16, 2025, e-mail.

“I believe Darren is finally close to resolving the tax issue,” Mr Gibson wrote to Mr Conde. “The structure will likely require approximately $100,000 upfront, followed by monthly payments over five years. Based on the business's recent performance and the current position of the business we can't undertake any more expenses, which is why I'm proposing that you commit to a proposal of making the upfront payment personally and then deduct the monthly payments from your lease payments.

“For example, if the monthly payments to Inland Revenue are $7,500, this will be paid by Conch & Coconut and deducted from your lease payment of $8,804, resulting in a reduced lease payment of $1,304.

“Additionally, to set aside some funds toward the $100,000 upfront payment to Inland Revenue, we must start as soon as December. This requires the December lease payment ($8,804) and the 5 percent ($14,264) in escrow with Darron as a start toward the payment. This would continue for January, February, and so on,” Mr Gibson added.

“I know you committed to paying the tax obligation, but unfortunately this commitment has fallen short. The above solution should work for everyone. Please reply to this email to let me know if you agree with it so I can advise Darren to draft a more precise agreement.”