- 22 -
that the withholding tax payments were not creditable to
petitioner.
On appeal, in Riggs II, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
District of Columbia Circuit concluded that petitioner was
legally liable for the withholding tax payments made by the
Central Bank because the March 1984 ruling constituted an order
by the Finance Minister, treated as an act of state, that the
Central Bank pay the withholding taxes. Riggs II, 163 F.3d at
1365-1369. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to us to
determine, among other things: (1) Whether the Central Bank in
fact paid withholding taxes on petitioner’s behalf; and if so,
(2) whether, in determining petitioner’s creditable amount, the
Brazilian withholding tax paid by the Central Bank must be
reduced by the amount of any pecuniary benefit that the Central
Bank may have received. Id. at 1369.
In Riggs III, we determined that petitioner had failed to
establish that the withholding taxes were paid by the Central
Bank as required under section 905(b). We questioned the
reliability of the schedules accompanying the DARFs and found
inexplicable the Central Bank’s reporting that it had received a
pecuniary benefit after June 28, 1985, the date on which the
pecuniary benefit was eliminated. Consequently, we held that
petitioner was not entitled to any credit for taxes purportedly
withheld by the Central Bank.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011