Riggs National Corporation & Subsidiaries (f.k.a. Riggs National Bank and Subsidiaries) - Page 81

                                       - 81 -                                         
          apply the case's net-loan-versus-gross-loan rationale in similar            
          cases involving foreign currency loans.                                     
               The evidence reflects that this particular point petitioner's          
          experts raise involves an area of Brazilian law in which there has          
          been considerable controversy.  Although Article 11 of Decree-law           
          401, by its terms, seems to be applicable only to import financing          
          loans, even petitioner's experts acknowledge that Decree-law 401            
          and the 1972 Brazilian Supreme Court decision that upheld the law's         
          validity have caused a great deal of confusion and generated                
          controversy in the area.  As petitioner's expert Gurerra related:           
               some key legal principles in connection with the taxation              
               of interest remitted by  *  *  *  [Brazilian borrowers]                
               to   *  *  *  [foreign lenders]--namely the   *  *  *                  
               [National Tax Code] definitions of taxable event,                      
               taxpayer, tax base and tax responsible and the scope of                
               the  *  *  *  [constitutional] tax immunity--were neither              
               adequately nor consistently applied by the  *  *  *                    
               [Brazilian Supreme Court].                                             
               *  *  *  The source of this problem was  *  *  *  [the                 
               1972 Brazilian Supreme Court decision that upheld the                  
               validity of Decree-law 401], while  *  *  *  [Article 11               
               of Decree-law 401 in defining the borrower remitting the               
               interest abroad to be the contribuente] clearly violates               
               the  *  *  *  [National Tax Code] definitions of taxable               
               event and taxpayer; the majority opinions varied largely               
               and did not express a precise understanding of the  *  *               
               *  [National Tax Code] on the main issues of the case.                 
               Subsequently, in addressing other cases dealing with                   
               these topics, the  *  *  *  [Brazilian Supreme Court] was              
               confronted with its conclusion in  *  *  *  [its 1972                  
               decision] and found no guidance in the varied opinions                 
               that had formed the majority in  *  *  *  [that                        
               precedent].                                                            
               It is neither necessary nor appropriate for us to decide               
          whether certain Brazilian Supreme Court decisions, including the            
          Parana II decision, were technically "wrong" in part of their legal         



Page:  Previous  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011