Riggs National Corporation & Subsidiaries - Page 32




                                       - 32 -                                         
                   Exhibits 694-ZP(6) [the Jan. 21, 1986, Morgan Bank                 
              letter] and 694-ZP(7) [the August 1986 Morgan Bank                      
              letter] are both form letters from Morgan, not the                      
              Central Bank. * * * No printouts were attached to these                 
              Exhibits and thus they also cannot support Respondent’s                 
              claim that the printouts showed the pecuniary benefit.                  
                   Finally, the parties have stipulated that Exhibit                  
              692-ZN(23) relates to an interest payment for January                   
              1985, well before the pecuniary benefit was eliminated.                 
              (Exhibit 697-ZS, p. ST004989)[15]  * * * Therefore, this                
              document [Exhibit 692-ZN(23)], like the others, cannot                  
              support Respondent’s claim.                                             
              B. Substantial Inconsistency Concerning the Central Bank’s              
         Purported Withholding Tax Payments on Petitioner’s Behalf                    
              We agree with respondent that there is a substantial                    
         inconsistency in the evidence concerning the Central Bank’s                  


               15   Petitioner’s argument overstates the parties’                     
          stipulation regarding Joint Exhibit 697-ZS.  As indicated supra,            
          Joint Exhibit 697-ZS lists the restructuring debt loans and                 
          interest payments subject to the March 1984 Brazilian IRS ruling.           
          This exhibit further lists and summarizes the related DARF’s and            
          other documentation in the record that were issued in connection            
          with each of the purported withholding tax payments petitioner              
          contends the Central Bank made on petitioner’s and the other                
          foreign lenders’ behalf.  In that regard, the parties stipulated:           
                    683.  The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,                  
               163 F.3d 1363, 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1999) remand requires                   
               that the Court determine, among other things, “which of                
               Riggs’ loans were subject to the Minister’s ruling.”                   
               The parties agree that Joint Exhibit 697-ZS shows the                  
               amount of claimed withholding tax in the column                        
               captioned “Petitioner’s Tax Amount (without subsidy                    
               reduction)” relating to loans which are subject to the                 
               Minister of Finance’s ruling * * *                                     
                    684.  Joint Exhibit 697-ZS summarizes the                         
               information set forth on the DARFs associated with the                 
               CGA and DFA interest payments which are subject to the                 
               Minister of Finance’s ruling.  The DARFs and                           
               accompanying documents are included in the record as                   
               Joint Exhibits 661-YI through 694-ZP.                                  





Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011