federal tax law, where “uniformity among the circuits is particularly desirable ... to ensure equal application of the tax system,” Wash. Energy Co. v. United States, 94 F.3d 1557, 1561 (Fed.Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted), and to further maintain consistency. Of greater concern than our departure from the views of a sister circuit in a similar case, however, is our departure from the logic that undergirds both Amoco and the case before us. Key to the Amoco court’s analysis of whether a subsidy was paid to “another person” was whether the “benefit” of the subsidy was retained by the foreign government that had paid it. See Amoco, 138 F.3d at 1148-49; see also Riggs Nat'l Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r, No. 24368-89, slip op. at 38 n. 12, 2004 WL 938295 (T.C. May 3, 2004) (<HOLDING>). If the benefit of the subsidy is retained by
recognizing the necessity of a benefit analysis in determining whether a subsidy is an indirect subsidy for the purposes of the treasury regulations recognizing the importance of historical analysis in determining whether legislation is punitive holding that a regulations criteria for determining whether a publication is a newspaper was unconstitutional where it discriminated on the basis of the content of the speech recognizing an administrative necessity exception to the general rule that state courts are the proper forum for determining whether there is a public highway under rs 2477 and the respective rights of interested parties recognizing that the most important factor in determining whether a governmental entity is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is whether a judgment against it would be paid from the state treasury