- 45 -
whether the Central Bank actually paid the withholding taxes in
issue. Petitioner offered no explanation as to why the Central Bank
erroneously continued to report to the foreign lenders that it had
received a “pecuniary benefit” in connection with its post-June 28,
1985, interest remittances to them, even though the pecuniary
benefit had been reduced to zero through the Central Bank’s issuance
of Resolution 1,033 on June 28, 1985. In its erroneous reports to
the foreign lenders, the Central Bank provided the lenders with
detailed schedules in which it had computed with respect to each
restructuring debt interest remittance made to a foreign lender:
(1) The “40-percent pecuniary benefit” the Central Bank received,
and (2) the “60-percent balance of actual withholding tax paid”.
If, as petitioner asserts, the Central Bank actually had paid
withholding taxes on petitioner’s and the other foreign lenders’
behalf on its restructuring debt interest remittances to them, we
then find inexplicable the Central Bank’s erroneous actions well
after June 28, 1985, in continuing to report its having received a
nonexistent “pecuniary benefit”. This is especially so in light of
the Central Bank’s prior issuance of Resolution 1,033 to make it
“public knowledge” that the pecuniary benefit had been reduced to
zero effective June 28, 1985.
Petitioner has failed to establish that the withholding taxes
in issue were paid by the Central Bank on petitioner’s behalf. The
evidence presented leads us to conclude that the group DARF’s are
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