- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011