- 82 - (2) The term "foreign country" means any foreign state, any possession of the United States, and any political subdivision of any foreign state or of any possession of the United States. * * * Initially, we note that our reasoning in respect of the existence of a refund disposes of any question of a direct subsidy within the meaning of section 1.901-2(e)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs. Indeed, respondent does not contend that the credit constituted a direct subsidy. Rather, she has focused on the existence of an indirect subsidy. At the outset, we note that the existence of an indirect subsidy does not depend upon finding that the U.S. taxpayer derived an actual economic benefit. Norwest Corp. v. Commissioner, 69 F.3d 1404 (8th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-282; see also Continental Illinois Corp. v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 513, 519-520 (7th Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1991-66, affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-636, and affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1988-318. We note, however, that such a principle does not mean that no person involved in the transaction need derive any benefit. In fact, the parties agree that the key question is whether EGPC benefitted from the credits of Amoco Egypt's taxes which it took against its own income taxes. Petitioner argues that EGPC, although a separate legal entity, should be considered part of the Egyptian Government and that, as a result, EGPC is not "another person" within the meaning of section 1.901-2(e)(3)(ii), Income TaxPage: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011