- 41 -
selected at random. Mr. von Paraski verified that certain entries
had been made on Banco do Brazil’s books reflecting Banco do
Brazil’s collection of this purported withholding tax payment from
the Central Bank.
We find Mr. von Paraski’s testimony far from dispositive in
establishing actual payment by the Central Bank of the purported
withholding tax payments in issue. As stated earlier in our
findings, on the basis of the record before us, it is impossible to
determine whether or what entries were made on the respective books
of the Central Bank and the National Treasury to reflect the Central
Bank’s purported restructuring debt withholding tax payments.
Further, we are unable to determine what, if any, entries were made
to determine: (1) Whether the Central Bank was reimbursed by the
National Treasury for its purported withholding tax payments, or (2)
whether the Central Bank received the pecuniary benefit based on
those alleged withholding tax payments.
Moreover, we find Mr. von Paraski’s testimony to be unhelpful
in other important respects. Among other things, Mr. von Paraski
did not specifically address whether the Central Bank had received
a “pecuniary benefit” in connection with its alleged withholding tax
payment on the July 1985 phase II DFA interest remittances.20
20 See infra note 21. On its return, petitioner reduced
the foreign tax credit it claimed for Brazilian tax on this July
1985 phase II DFA interest payment by the “40-percent pecuniary
benefit” it mistakenly believed the Central Bank to have
(continued...)
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011