- 31 -
Resolution 1033. Yet, the Central Bank continued to
issue its letters and schedules (printouts) to the agent
banks reporting its receipt of the pecuniary benefit
(subsidy) through at least March 5, 1987, over a year and
eight months after the pecuniary benefit (subsidy) was
reduced to zero. * * * Exhibit 692-ZN(23) [the Nov. 19,
1985, letter from Mr. Oliveira to Morgan Bank discussed
in our findings] clearly shows the Central Bank issuing
an erroneous printout to the agent bank on November 19,
1985, reporting the “receipt” of a pecuniary benefit that
should never have been paid. * * * Petitioner continued
to report its Brazilian tax receipts net of a 40% subsidy
through at least January, 1987, relying upon erroneous
letters and underlying Central Bank printouts. * * * By
continuing to generate DARFs that reported pecuniary
benefit over a year and one half after its elimination,
the Central Bank has provided evidence showing that its
representations were, at best, inaccurate.
Respondent notes that in addition to Mr. Oliveira’s letter of
November 19, 1985, there were two Morgan Bank letters, respectively
dated January 21, 1986, and August 1986, each of which was discussed
supra.
In its reply brief on remand, petitioner denies that a
substantial inconsistency exists in the evidence it offered to
substantiate the Central Bank’s actual payment of the withholding
tax in issue. Specifically, petitioner denies that the Central Bank
reported to the foreign lenders that it had continued to “receive”
a “pecuniary benefit” in connection with its post-June 28, 1985,
restructuring debt remittances and asserts:
Respondent identifies several letters which he
claims reflect receipt of the pecuniary benefit by the
Central Bank after June 28, 1985, when the pecuniary
benefit was reduced to zero. * * * An examination of the
documents * * * shows the claimed inaccuracies do not
exist. * * *
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011