- 25 -
(1977) (Model Treaty), and explanatory commentaries (Model
Commentaries) provide helpful guidance. See Letter of
Transmittal from President Carter to the Senate of the United
States requesting ratification of the Convention, dated November
12, 1980, 4 Roberts & Holland, Legislative History of United
States Tax Conventions, p. 242 (1986); S. Comm. on Foreign
Relations, Tax Convention and Proposed Protocols with Canada, S.
Exec. Rept. 98-22 (1984), 4 Roberts & Holland, supra at 1096;
Taisei Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 535
(1995)(use of O.E.C.D. Commentaries in interpreting meaning of
permanent establishments). It is the role of the judiciary to
interpret international conventions and to enforce domestic
rights arising from them. See Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187
(1961); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939); Charlton v. Kelly,
229 U.S. 447 (1913); United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407
(1886). Tax treaties are purposive, and, accordingly, we should
consider the perceived underlying intent or purpose of the treaty
provision. See, e.g., Estate of Burghardt v. Commissioner, supra
at 717 (treating a reference to a "specific exemption" in a U.S.-
Italy estate tax treaty as not limited to an exemption as such,
but included a subsequently enacted unified credit having the
same function as an exemption); Smith, Tax Treaty Interpretation
by the Judiciary, 49 Tax Lawyer 845, 858-867 (1996). In
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011