- 68 -
and the arguments of the parties as to the credibility of that
testimony, we conclude the following in respect of the intention
of the parties at the time the MCA was concluded in 1975:11
(1) Amoco Egypt clearly intended that Article IV(f)(6) was
designed to confirm EGPC's right under general Egyptian tax law
to deduct from its income the amount of taxes it was paying on
Amoco Egypt's behalf and not to authorize a credit which would
constitute an exception to such law.
(2) EGPC was uncertain of its right, under the general
Egyptian income tax law, to deduct taxes paid on behalf of
another from its income and, as far as it was concerned, the
purpose of Article IV(f)(6) was to confirm that right. Perhaps
EGPC may have had an unexpressed view that the insertion of the
word "minha" in the Arabic version which followed by rote the
Esso and Mobil agreements provided a basis for obtaining a credit
rather than a deduction. Certainly, its post-1975 actions in
claiming that credit lends some support to such a view although
it clearly does not provide legal blessing of its correctness.
(3) With respect to the Egyptian Government, we find no
discernible intent as to the meaning of Article IV(f)(6). In the
11 The most persuasive single item of evidence on the intent of
Amoco Egypt and EGPC is the letter, dated August 4, 1975, signed
by Craig, president of Amoco Egypt, and initialed by Leithy,
chairman of EGPC, which clearly restates that EGPC is to deduct
Amoco Egypt's taxes from EGPC's income. We are not impressed
with respondent's attacks on this letter and Craig's supporting
testimony.
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011