- 72 -
Petitioner argues that we can rely on the ETD determination.
Respondent counters with several arguments. First, respondent
argues that, prior to 1992, it was settled law that Article
IV(f)(6) provided EGPC with a foreign tax credit. In support of
this argument, respondent points to the fact that, in 1991, the
GPC, a subsidiary of EGPC, prevailed before the Arbitral Tribunal
in a dispute with the Finance Ministry and the ETD over whether a
provision similar to Article IV(f)(6) entitled the GPC to a
credit for taxes paid on behalf of another party. However, the
decision of the tribunal focused on whether GPC in fact paid
taxes on behalf of the foreign partner and did not deal with the
question of whether GPC was entitled to a deduction or a credit
for such taxes. Leaving aside whether the Arbitral Tribunal's
decision constitutes settled Egyptian law, it is obvious that
such decision does not operate to preclude the ETD from
challenging EGPC's credit practice.
As a second point, based on her assertion that settled
Egyptian law provided for a credit under Article IV(f)(6),
respondent argues that "Article IV(f)(6) is a statutory provision
which cannot be amended except by the enactment of another law by
the People's Assembly and the President", and that neither the
ETD determination nor the December 1992 agreement between Amoco
Egypt and EGPC is sufficient to amend the statutory text of
Article IV(f)(6). We think it obvious from our earlier analysis
that this argument is without merit. The ETD determination and
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011