- 58 -
We are not persuaded by respondent's assertion that this
statement in the conference report should guide the result in
this case. To the extent that the statements in the conference
report may be read as expressing the view of the Senate that
section 842(b) is consistent with the Canadian Convention they
are the statements of a subsequent Senate and, therefore, at
best, "form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an
earlier one." South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 379 n.16
(1984); Consumer Prod. Safety Commn. v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S.
102, 117 (1980). In the end, the courts alone must declare what
the Canadian Convention and particularly Article VII mean. See
American Exch. Sec. Corp. v. Helvering, 74 F.2d 213, 214 (1934).
In sum, we are confronted with a situation, in which the
language of Article VII, paragraph (2) is at best murky, and the
interpretations of both parties have advantages and
disadvantages. We are impressed that the Canadian Convention may
give an economic advantage to Canadian insurance companies
operating through a permanent establishment in the United States.
Nevertheless, our view is that petitioner's interpretation of
Article VII, paragraph (2) best carries out the intent of the
20(...continued)
regulatory authority for the Secretary to provide a relief
mechanism to mitigate the effects of any increase in tax
resulting from the fact that a taxpayer's deemed income from
required U.S. assets exceeds its actual income from those assets.
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011