- 75 -
determination by our own government, at least where there is no
evidence of fraud or corruption, which is the case herein. See
Raheja v. Commissioner, 725 F.2d 64, 66 (7th Cir. 1984), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1981-690; Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner,
62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974); cf. W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v.
Environmental Tectonics Corp. Intl., 493 U.S. 400 (1989).
Under the foregoing circumstances, we find it unnecessary to
delve into the question whether the ETD determination approved by
the Ministers of Petroleum and Finance, should, as petitioner
argues, be accorded conclusive effect under the act of state
doctrine. See W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics
Corp. Intl., supra.13
One incidental consequence of the ETD determination needs to
be mentioned. The ETD determination could not affect the taxable
periods of EGPC prior to that ending June 30, 1981, because those
periods were barred by the applicable Egyptian statutory period
of limitations. Some of those periods are contained in the
taxable years of Amoco involved herein. Respondent argues that
the credits for Amoco Egypt's taxes taken by EGPC in respect of
those periods should not be affected by the ETD determination.
We disagree. The expiration of the period of limitations does
not substantively legitimatize the barred action; it simply
reflects an inability to enforce the obligation that would
13 See also Norwest Corp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-282,
affd. 69 F.3d 1404 (8th Cir. 1995).
Page: Previous 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011