- 30 -
pass along to the repass borrowers by Brazilian law.” Norwest
Corp. v. Commissioner, 69 F.3d at 1410. Those repass loans “fell
within the letter as well as the spirit of the subsidy
regulation.” Continental Illinois Corp. v. Commissioner, 998
F.2d at 520; see also Norwest Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at
1410.
As a threshold matter, petitioner maintains that this Court
should find that the Central Bank did not receive any pecuniary
benefit from 1984 through September 28, 1985. According to
petitioner, in Riggs I, this Court found that the record does not
contain any evidence that the Central Bank received a pecuniary
benefit with respect to the tax that it withheld for interest
remittance to Riggs. Petitioner further argues that: (1) There
has been no new evidence submitted that would contradict this
Court’s prior finding, (2) the Court of Appeals did not reach,
and thus did not reverse, this Court’s factual finding that the
pecuniary benefit had not been paid, (3) the Court of Appeals
made no finding as to whether the pecuniary benefit actually had
been paid to the Central Bank, and (4) if there was no pecuniary
benefit paid to the Central Bank, there can be no subsidy.
Petitioner concludes that, unless this Court decides to reverse
its prior finding, petitioner is entitled to the full amount of
the foreign tax credit claimed.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011