- 73 - the later agreement did not seek to amend the law. The ETD merely sought an interpretation of how Article IV(f)(6), as originally written, should be applied. Additionally, we reject respondent's attempt to have us reject the ETD determination because of prior actions by the Internal Committee in respect of EGPC taxes where the credit was not disallowed. There is no evidence that the credit issue was ever addressed prior to 1992. Moreover, the ETD was not bound by prior inaction any more than respondent would be in respect of such inaction. See Lozoff v. United States, 392 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1968), affg. 266 F.Supp. 966 (E.D. Wis. 1967); Thomas v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 206, 226- 227 (1989). Respondent seeks to undermine the effect of the ETD determination by arguing that EGPC could have successfully disputed that determination under substantive and procedural Egyptian law, and that EGPC would have done so but for petitioner's efforts to persuade Banbi, the Minister of Petroleum, to prevent EGPC from doing so. Whether EGPC could have successfully challenged the ETD determination is unclear, because there was no precedent focused on the credit versus deduction issue at the time. In this connection, we note that in 1993, the Refute Committee, on an appeal from the Internal Committee, supra p. 5, upheld the ETD's interpretation of a provision like Article IV(f)(6) in an agreement between GPC and another foreign oil company. The Refute Committee relied on thePage: Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011