i do in this case, but it might be a stretch.
a tax credit is a 1 for 1 deduction against taxes. if you owe 50 dollars in taxes and you have a 50 dollar tax credit, your tax liability is zero.
nol's deal with income deductions. such that if you have 5 million of income against which you owe taxes of (say 10%) you would owe $500,000 in taxes. if you had a $4 million nol and could apply all of it against the $5 million of income, you would reduce your taxable income from $5 million to $1 million and in the same example would now only owe $100,000 of taxes.
as you can see, that is not a 1 for 1 avoidance of taxes as in the tax credit example.
now for the stretch part, is it semantics or intentional. why did the apa refer to these purchases assets as "credit of taxes" as opposed to tax credits.
the term "tax credit" has a very specific accounting meaning. is that the same meaning applied to the term "credit of taxes"?
don't know, but that's the jump i took from the language.
seems to me the apa was structured to preserve nol's for esl and both sides certainly had high powered accounting and legal professionals drafting this document.
