- 69 - Egyptian Government's various reviews of the MCA, there is no discussion of the computation of taxes. Respondent argues that intent can be found in the Egyptian Government's review of the 1973 Mobil agreement. Respondent refers to a report to the Egyptian State Council, in which it was concluded that the provision, identical to Article IV(f)(6), in effect put Mobil on equal footing with a party who enjoyed a tax exemption. Respondent argues that, by this conclusion, the Government intended Mobil, and later Amoco, to enjoy a tax exemption. We are not persuaded. The report merely makes a common-sense observation, similar to one that could be made about the U.S. taxpayer in Example (3) of section 1.901-2(f)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs.12 Furthermore, there is no evidence that the report was considered by the State Council or by the Egyptian legislature, the People's Assembly. The authorization laws for both the Esso and Mobil agreements were promulgated by presidential decree, without being enacted by the People's Assembly. We find support for our conclusions that the MCA would have been more explicit in allowing EGPC a credit if that was so intended. There appears to have been no provision in the general 12 In Example (3) of sec. 1.901-2(f)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs., the U.S. taxpayer's foreign tax obligation is assumed by the government of the foreign country imposing the tax liability. The example recognizes that the foreign tax is paid, although there is no direct out-of-pocket payment from the U.S. taxpayer. See infra p. 80.Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011