Because of the "significant effect" of the limitations to their research work, and the "uncertainties" that generated the collected data, the General Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish) declined to comment on the financial statements of the General Administration of Ports a society of the State. The issue is that, although the information was learned this year, the watchdog’s assessment was for the year 2004.

This qualification is obtained when an auditor cannot pass judgment on the balance sheets of some entity, in this case, the one that manages the port activity.

Among the uncertainties that led to the abstention of the AGN, we emphasize that it was not possible to calculate how much money the Port Authority owed the Department of Revenue of the City of Buenos Aires for the payment of turnover taxes. The claim is not new, it is for the periods 1988-1989 and 1990-1999. And while the port entity estimated about $88 million to meet this commitment, the calculation is done only until September 1999 and no movements are recorded as of December 31st, 2004, which was, the end of the reporting year. "The unregistered amount is unknown and could affect the results of the entity," the report explains, the audit added that the administration also rejected an attempt to verify rent tax because it was argued that the Buenos Aires office lacked tax knowledge.

It also generated uncertainty in the Audit, the fact that the Port Authority has several ongoing legal issues. Some arose from the actions taken by the agency in currency matters after the end of the “convertibility” era, which dated back to January 2002, when a peso and a dollar were worth the same amount. These are in the process of resolution to the date of this report, "states the AGN, which directly affects the calculation of the money to allow judgments to be made.

Other demands that are not listed in the financial statements of the administration have to do with the Stimulus Fund provided for in its own statute, and whose judgment, according to the Audit, "is uncertain" to the day of the investigation.

But that's not all. In terms of judgments, the audit found that the port entity calculates the money needed to meet claims against it "without considering inflation and interest, which in some cases can exceed 60%.” 119 cases were verified in various stages of evidence, without specifying the amount of the claim. For these reasons, they have not been able to verify how much it could affect the results "in the balance of the Administration.

In addition, the watchdog points out that in the port entity assets approximately $5.8 million relating to "Miscellaneous Payments to Lost Individuals are not included" this is linked to disbursements made to a company called Intefema SA when a concession contract was terminated in Terminal 6 of Puerto Nuevo.

Moreover, since 2003, the Port Authority began using a new operating system that did not help the investigation of the AGN. The mechanism was powered by manual and computerized means, "which had not been formally tested, not meeting requirements for reliability and integrity," states the report. This has consequences such as missing supporting documentation and delays in the information supplied by the port, which also "denotes a low degree of reliability in the accounting systems and administrative processes".

Beyond the balance of 2004, the AGN also issued reports about the contractual terms of the Port Terminals, in that year, as well as in 2005, 2008, and 2009. In these works "were revealed irregularities that jeopardize the administration and control of the activity of dealers", which ultimately constituted limitations on the audit’s scope.

To complete the picture, the AGN adds that it could not find information on how the Port Authority calculates the Income Tax, and Minimum Presumed Income. In fact, the report points out that "the tax assessment for 2003 and 2004 were performed with unaudited balance sheets, differing materially from the audited financial results of the audited states."

All this, limitations on the scope of the investigation, and the data uncertainties, caused the watchdog to refrain from commenting on the financial statements of the Port Authority for 2004. Something similar happened in 2011, when, for the same reasons, the AGN also declined to comment regarding the balance of 2003.