- 63 -
treaty provides a series of so-called "tie-breaker" rules for
determining residence where an individual qualifies as a resident of
both countries, as follows:
2. Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1 an
individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then his
status shall be determined as follows:
(a) He shall be deemed to be a resident of the
Contracting State in which he has a permanent home
available to him; if he has a permanent home available to
him in both States or in neither State, he shall be deemed
to be a resident of the Contracting State with which his
personal and economic relations are closer (centre of
vital interests);
(b) If the Contracting State in which he has his
centre of vital interests cannot be determined, he shall
be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State in
which he has an habitual abode;
(c) If he has an habitual abode in both States or in
neither State, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the
Contracting State of which he is a citizen; and
(d) If he is a citizen of both States or of neither of
them, the competent authorities of the Contracting States
shall settle the question by mutual agreement.
15(...continued)
any treaty obligation of the United States which applies to such
taxpayer."); sec. 7852(d)(1) ("For purposes of determining the
relationship between a provision of a treaty and any law of the
United States affecting revenue, neither the treaty nor the law
shall have preferential status by reason of its being a treaty or
law.")
If a treaty conflicts with a Federal law, the later in time
will prevail. Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 600
(1889); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888); see also
Lindsey v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 672, 676 (1992), affd. without
published opinion 15 F.3d 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011