- 26 -
addressing the issues of this case, we shall keep at the
forefront our role in the interpretation of conventions.
Respondent asserts two principles of convention
interpretation with which petitioner disagrees. First,
respondent argues that the literal terms of a convention must be
interpreted consistently with the expectations and intentions of
the United States in entering the Canadian Convention. In
support of this contention, respondent cites United States v.
Stuart, supra at 365-366, and Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v.
Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 185 (1982). Second, respondent
represents that the principles of treaty interpretation, set
forth in her brief, were approved by the Office of International
Tax Counsel of the Treasury Department as interpretations
consistently held by the United States. Respondent contends that
any contrary interpretations held by Canada are subordinate to
such consistently maintained U.S. interpretations. Respondent
relies upon United States v. A.L. Burbank & Co., 525 F.2d 9 (2d
Cir. 1975) for support of her contention.
None of these cases supports respondent's position. As
evidenced by Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, supra at 180,
and later in United States v. Stuart, supra at 365-366, the
Supreme Court has consistently held that we must consider the
expectations and intentions of both signatories, not just those
of the United States. The Court states:
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011