- 7 - Id. Art. IV, par. 1.2 During 1990, petitioner was a resident of the United States because he retained resident alien immigration status. See sec. 7701(b)(1)(A)(i); sec. 301.7701(b)-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioners, however, must also show that petitioner was a Canadian resident on the basis of Canadian law. Canada Convention Art. IV, par. 2. Rule 146 provides that a party who intends to raise a foreign law issue in this Court: shall give notice in the pleadings or other reasonable written notice. The Court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or otherwise admissible. The Court's determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law. The notes to the Rules explain that "This rule is taken almost verbatim from FRCP 44.1." 60 T.C. 1137. We have interpreted Rule 146 by referring to cases interpreting rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Commissioner 76, T.C. 493, 495-496 (1981). Although rule 44.1 allows the court to look beyond the representations of the parties regarding foreign law, it does not impose upon the court 2 On Aug. 31, 1994, the United States and Canada signed a third protocol to the treaty. A revised protocol was signed by the United States and Canada on Mar. 17, 1995, and replaced the protocol signed during August 1994. The revised protocol modified the definition of resident contained in Art. IV. The new definition, however, is not applicable to the year in issue. During July 1997, a fourth protocol between the United States and Canada was signed in Ottawa. On June 8, 1998, the IRS announced that the United States had recently exchanged instruments of ratification for the fourth protocol with Canada. Announcement 98-47, 1998-23 I.R.B. 5.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011