Amoco Corporation (Formerly Standard Oil Company (Indiana) and Affiliated Corporations - Page 70

                                       - 70 -                                         
          Egyptian tax law allowing a credit for taxes paid.  By contrast,            
          when EGPC was exempted from certain customs, export and stamp               
          duties, the exemptions were clearly listed in the enabling                  
          legislation, and the exemptions were discussed in the legislative           
          history.                                                                    
               Further, we note that, in the 50/50 agreements, where a                
          credit was intended, the parties used appropriate language, which           
          is not found in the MCA.                                                    
               Finally, we are satisfied that the post-1975 events did not            
          constitute a ratification by Amoco Egypt of any purported right             
          of EGPC to take the credit for Amoco Egypt's taxes, assuming for            
          purposes of discussion that such ratification would have created            
          a right which EGPC did not have as a matter of Egyptian law, an             
          assumption of doubtful validity since the MCA agreements had the            
          force of law which would make Article IV(f)(6) inviolate in                 
          respect of changes in meaning by the parties.                               
               We recognize that, in 1980, Amoco learned that EGPC was                
          claiming a credit by virtue of Article IV(f)(6).  EGPC's basis              
          for taking such a credit was never discussed, and the proper                
          interpretation remained in dispute when the parties entered into            
          the amended MCA in 1983.  Amoco did not agree that EGPC was                 
          entitled to a credit, but did not press the issue at the time,              
          first, because it planned on deleting the provision from the MCA,           
          and later, because Amoco thought, based on EGPC's governmental              
          status (see infra pp. 81-82), it was irrelevant for U.S. foreign            




Page:  Previous  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011