- 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