REVENUE FOREGONE IN THE FUTURE: AN INCOHERENT RULING IN THE BOEING PANEL REPORT?

In the recent Boeing panel report,  the panel  decided  in the context of the fiscal regime of the State of Washington  that  “it  is not necessary for the Panel to resolve the issue of whether revenue to be foregone in the future constitutes a financial contribution for the purposes of the threat of serious prejudice analysis” (at  7.154) . Therefore, it would not rely upon tax abatements to be received

in assessing the European Communities' present serious prejudice case.

However, a few pages later, the panel  concluded in the context of a tax reduction introduced in the City of Everett and  without even a word  about the issue of  revenue foregone in the future, that revenue foregone

by this City  is a financial contribution  since it “ constitutes the foregoing of revenue otherwise due under Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) of the SCM Agreement.” (At 7.332)

My impression is that this ruling is somewhat incoherent. There are not in the SCM Agreement two definitions of a financial contribution, one for serious prejudice analysis and one for determining the existence of a subsidy.  How is it possible for the panel to say that it is not resolving an issue and then immediately after doing the contrary without even saying a word about what it is really doing?