- 11 -
entities over and beyond the 50 States constituting the United
States plus the District of Columbia. We need not tarry long
over this first argument. The partnerships argue, among other
things, that including foreign agencies is consistent with the
use of the term "State" in the international context. We quote
from the partnerships' opening brief:
Including foreign agencies in the
definition of "comparable State agency" is
also consistent with the general usage of the
term "State" in the international tax
context. Although "State" naturally is often
limited to the U.S. states when used
domestically, it more typically is used
internationally to refer to national
governments. For example, in the
U.S./Australia income tax treaty, the term is
defined as follows:
The term "State" means any National
State, whether or not one of the Contracting
States.
Convention Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government
of Australia for the Avoidance of Double
Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion
with Respect to Taxes on Income, Article
3(1)(h), reprinted in 1986-2 C.B. 220.
Following this quotation, the partnerships simply state that,
based on the treaty definition, a broader reading of the term
"State" is more appropriate "in this context".
We think it indisputable that the term "State", as it
appears in section 175(c)(3)(A)(ii), denotes one of the States
and the District of Columbia which, taken as a whole, constitute
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011