- 79 -
deemed paid under section 131(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1939, the predecessor to section 902, with respect to a dividend
from a Canadian corporation of which it owned more than 10
percent. Some time after the U.S. taxpayer had sold its stock in
the corporation, the Canadian tax authorities refunded the
Canadian corporation's tax payments. We held the U.S. taxpayer
was not entitled to a credit because the taxes deemed to have
been paid by the U.S. taxpayer were deemed to have been refunded
to the U.S. taxpayer. In the instant case, there is no question
the taxes paid on behalf of Amoco Egypt were not refunded to
Amoco Egypt.
Similar reasoning disposes of respondent's attempt to
support her position as to the existence of a refund by
analogizing Example (2) of section 1.901-2(e)(2)(ii), Income Tax
Regs., which addresses the situation where a U.S. taxpayer, A, is
entitled to an investment credit and a credit for charitable
contributions in country X. The example finds that the amount of
tax paid by A is A's initial income tax liability less the amount
of the investment credit and credit for charitable contributions.
The example is inapplicable because it involved a refund directly
to the U.S. taxpayer.
In our view, section 1.901-2(e)(2), Income Tax Regs.,
applies only if the refund is made to or for the account of the
U.S. taxpayer claiming credit for the foreign tax. The absence
of a refund to Amoco Egypt leaves us with the question to which
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011