- 31 -
Petitioner points to Riggs I, 107 T.C. at 335, where we
said: “We are unable to ascertain * * * whether the Central Bank
received the pecuniary benefit based on those withholding tax
payments.” This sentence, however, is taken out of context; it
does not represent a prior factual finding of this Court that the
Central Bank from 1984 through September 28, 1985, received no
pecuniary benefit. The paragraph in our Riggs I findings
containing this sentence reads:
On the record presented in this case it is
impossible to determine what entries were made on the
respective books of the Central Bank and the National
Treasury to reflect the Central Bank’s payment of
withholding tax on the restructuring debt interest
remittances. We are unable to ascertain what, if any,
entries were made to determine: (1) Whether the
Central Bank was reimbursed by the National Treasury
for its withholding tax payments; or (2) whether the
Central Bank received the pecuniary benefit based on
those withholding tax payments. The Central Bank’s
ruling request raised these two matters, and the March
1984 Brazilian IRS ruling discussed the two
possibilities. [Id.; fn. ref. omitted.]
See also id. at 323 n.13, 361 n.47, 363. A virtually identical
paragraph appears in our Riggs III findings.
Contrary to petitioner’s argument, in Riggs I and Riggs III
we did not expressly find that the Central Bank did not receive a
pecuniary benefit with respect to those Brazilian taxes it
withheld and paid from 1984 through June 28, 1985. In Riggs I
and Riggs III, we did not reach, and did not have to decide, the
issue of whether the pecuniary benefit the Central Bank
reportedly received with respect to those Brazilian taxes must
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011