- 11 -
that the circumstances of this case reveal an even greater
potential for prejudice to petitioners. To recapitulate, we
focus particularly on the similarity of the underlying
substantive requirements for a credit versus a deduction,
respondent’s apparently unreserved stipulations and opportunity
to adduce evidence to the contrary, and petitioners’ reliance on
the standard set forth in case law for Rule 155 consideration.
In this context, concerns of justice counsel us not summarily to
refuse petitioners the opportunity under Rule 41(a) to plead this
issue and thereby to render it at least a possible subject of a
Rule 155 computation. We thus will grant petitioners’ motions to
amend.
Furthermore, now that such amendment brings this issue
properly before the Court, we shall reconsider that portion of
our prior opinion which declined, on the grounds that the matter
had been raised solely on brief, to permit petitioners to reserve
the right to deduct foreign taxes as part of a Rule 155
computation. We therefore will grant petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration to the limited extent of the supplemental
findings of fact and conclusions below.
In our memorandum opinion, we found the following:
Commencing in 1987, FIL also began making payments
by wire transfer directly to accounts in the name of
“Flocktex shareholders”. For the years at issue, the
recipients and amounts of these payments are set forth
below:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011