- 42 -
Although petitioner notes certain testimony by Mr. von Paraski in
which he mentioned offhand not knowing of any “refund” being made
to the Central Bank of the alleged restructuring debt withholding
tax payments, Mr. von Paraski did not actually inquire into (1)
whether the Central Bank received the pecuniary benefit, or (2)
whether any other transactions took place resulting in a “refund”
being made of the Central Bank’s “withholding tax payment”. Mr. von
Paraski examined the books and records of Banco do Brazil only to
confirm that appropriate entries had been made on those books
reflecting Banco do Brazil’s ostensible collection of withholding
tax from the Central Bank in connection with the July 1985 phase II
DFA interest payment Mr. von Paraski had chosen to examine. He did
not examine the respective books of the Central Bank and National
Treasury to determine how the purported tax payment had been
reflected and treated on their books. Hence, we accord little
weight to Mr. von Paraski’s testimony that he was unaware of such
“refund” transactions having taken place, as he did not conduct a
full inquiry into these matters.21
20(...continued)
received.
21 In this connection, on direct examination, Mr. von
Paraski testified:
Q. Are you familiar with the pecuniary benefit
that used to be paid to Brazilian borrowers of foreign
currency loans?
(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