- 98 -
years before us. This we will not do. We hold that the instant
case is governed by Example (3) and that, by virtue of the last
sentence thereof, the subsidy rule of section 1.901-2(e)(3),
Income Tax Regs., does not apply.
Given our conclusion that there was no subsidy, we need not
address the question whether, if Example (3) did not apply and
EGPC were treated as "another person" under section 1.901-
2(e)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., see supra p. 81, EGPC's obligation
to transfer its surplus annually to the Finance Ministry (which
also received Amoco Egypt's taxes paid by EGPC) in and of itself
negated any benefit to EGPC and therefore precluded a finding of
a subsidy. Similarly, we need not address the question whether
the potentially different impact of a credit versus a deduction
on the bonuses of EGPC employees would be sufficient to warrant a
finding of an indirect subsidy to Amoco Egypt. Finally, our
disposition makes it unnecessary for us to deal with the impact
on petitioner's foreign tax credit of the difference in exchange
rates between the time of the payments by EGPC during the years
in issue and its payment of back taxes in 1992.
In view of the fact that there are other issues to be
resolved in this case,
An appropriate order will be issued
disposing of the foreign tax credit
issue.
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Last modified: May 25, 2011