Riggs National Corporation & Subsidiaries (f.k.a. Riggs National Bank and Subsidiaries) - Page 68

                                       - 68 -                                         
               Even da Silva, the principal author of the March 1984 private          
          Brazilian IRS ruling issued to the Central Bank, acknowledged that          
          the borrowers-to-be theory was a "new theory" that he devised to            
          deal with an "atypical situation".  He asserted that he and Luiz            
          Patury Accioly (Patury Accioly), the other top-level Brazilian IRS          
          official assigned by Dornelles to revise the Doniak-Kahan draft             
          ruling, were trying to save face for and avoid embarrassment to the         
          Brazilian IRS, because its prior issuance of SRF 368 lacked "any            
          legal basis" under Brazilian law.29  According to da Silva, Patury          
          Accioly (who was serving as a Brazilian IRS official when SRF 368           
          was issued) told him that SRF 368 had been issued by the Brazilian          
          IRS because various States and municipalities did not want to be            
          required to pay withholding tax on their net loan interest                  
          remittances abroad.  Most significantly, da Silva further related           
          that the Doniak-Kahan draft ruling, at the time it was being hotly          
          debated within the Brazilian IRS and the Brazilian Government,              
          though supported by certain Brazilian Supreme Court decisions,              

          29        Da Silva attributed the Brazilian IRS's "illegal"                 
          actions in issuing SRF 368 to the fact that Brazil was under the            
          control of a military regime.  As a result, he claimed, the                 
          executive branch of the Brazilian Government largely could do as            
          it pleased.  The record, however, reflects that Brazil operated             
          under this military regime until about 1985.  Thus, the March               
          1984 Brazilian IRS private ruling was issued to the Central Bank            
          during this period of military rule.  Further, on cross-                    
          examination, da Silva acknowledged that Dornelles had no                    
          connection to the military regime.  More importantly, da Silva              
          did not address the fact that the position taken in SRF 368 was             
          consistent with the Brazilian Supreme Court's Parana II and Santo           
          Andre I decisions.  The Santo Andre I decision was issued on June           
          17, 1988, a date well after the military regime had ended.  We              
          find this aspect of da Silva's testimony not credible.                      



Page:  Previous  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011