Stephen D. Podd - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          a duty to independently research foreign law.  See Twohy v. First           
          Natl. Bank, 758 F.2d 1185, 1193 (7th Cir. 1985) (construing rule            
          44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).  In MacLean v.               
          Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1045, 1053 (1980), this Court refused to              
          hold that a taxpayer who offered no evidence of United Kingdom              
          law was a United Kingdom resident for tax purposes.                         
               In the instant case, petitioners did not introduce or cite             
          any Canadian law on the issue of residency either at trial or in            
          their briefs.  Even in the instant motion for reconsideration,              
          petitioners failed to cite a single Canadian statute, regulation,           
          or case which would be relevant precedent on the issue of                   
          residency for Canadian tax purposes.  In their reply brief and in           
          the instant motion, petitioners cite only Interpretation Bulletin           
          IT-221R2 issued by Revenue Canada.  That bulletin represents the            
          position of Revenue Canada, the Canadian tax administrator, and             
          "does not have the binding effect of law".  Mattabi Mines Ltd. v.           
          Minister of Revenue (Ontario) (1988) 53 D.L.R. (4th) 656, 664.              
          Because petitioners failed to present this Court with any                   
          reference to authoritative Canadian law, it was not substantial             
          error for this Court to find that petitioner was not a Canadian             
          resident under Canadian law and therefore refuse to apply the               
          Canada Convention in the instant case.  For that reason, we deny            
          petitioners' motion for reconsideration.                                    
               Moreover, even if we were to accept petitioners' contention            
          that petitioner was a Canadian resident under Canadian law and              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011