- 3 -
restructuring debt interest remittances to petitioner was a
noncompulsory amount, rather than a tax. Thus, we held that the
purported withholding tax payments were not creditable to
petitioner. See id. As a result, we did not decide whether the
purported withholding tax payments were in fact made by the Central
Bank. See id. at 360-361.
The Court of Appeals concluded that: (1) A March 1984
Brazilian IRS private letter ruling issued to the Central Bank was
a “compulsory order” by the Brazilian Finance Minister to the
Central Bank mandating that the latter pay the purported
withholding taxes, and therefore, (2) petitioner was “legally
liable” for the purported withholding tax payments the Central Bank
made on petitioner’s behalf. The Court of Appeals remanded the
case to us to decide certain matters concerning petitioner’s
entitlement to foreign tax credits as a consequence of petitioner’s
being “legally liable” for the purported withholding tax payments
made by the Central Bank on petitioner’s behalf. Riggs Natl. Corp.
& Subs. v. Commissioner, 163 F.3d at 1369.2
2 Among other things, the Court of Appeals directed us to
determine which of petitioner’s restructuring debt loans were
subject to the March 1984 Brazilian IRS ruling. The parties have
now stipulated in evidence an exhibit that lists those loans and
interest payments. This exhibit also lists and summarizes the
related withholding receipts and other documents in the record
that were issued in connection with each of the withholding tax
payments that petitioner contends the Central Bank made on its
behalf.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011