- 77 - involved herein. We are still left with questions stemming from the fact that, whether or not authorized by Article IV(f)(6), EGPC credited Amoco Egypt's income taxes paid by it against its income taxes. These issues relate to the assertion by respondent that such action on EGPC's part constituted a refund or subsidy which should deprive Amoco Egypt of its claimed foreign tax credit. Arguably, our disposition of these issues in favor of petitioner could have obviated our lengthy analysis of the proper interpretation of Article IV(f)(6). However, we decided to set forth such analysis, not only because the parties extensively argued the issue of such interpretation but because we concluded that such analysis would provide useful background for resolution of the issues that still remain. Moreover, we note that even though the credit was not, at any time, proper under Article IV(f)(6), EGPC's action in taking the credit for periods prior to the period ending June 30, 1980, and the running of the period of limitations would require us, to that extent, to deal with such action as a separate matter. We now turn to the refund and subsidy issues. With respect to the existence of a refund, section 1.901- 2(e), Income Tax Regs., provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) In general. Credit is allowed * * * for the amount of income tax * * * that is paid to a foreign country by the taxpayer. * * * (2) Refunds and credits--(i) In general. An amount is not tax paid to a foreign country to the extent that it is reasonably certain that the amountPage: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011