- 10 -
on Capital, Report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) Committee on Fiscal Affairs Art. 4, par. 2
(1977) (Model Treaty), contains substantially the same language
as the above-quoted Art. IV., par. 2 of the Canada Convention.
The commentary to the Model Treaty (commentary) further explains
the requirements of Model Treaty Art. 4.3 Because both the
United States and Canada were OECD members when the Model Treaty
and the commentary were drafted, courts have used the commentary
to interpret income tax treaties between the United States and
Canada. See United States v. A.L. Burbank & Co., 525 F.2d 9, 15
(2d Cir. 1975); North W. Life Assurance Co. of Canada v.
Commissioner, 107 T.C. 363 (1996); see also Taisei Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 535, 546 (1995) (construing
the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the
Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income,
Mar. 8, 1971, U.S.-Japan, 23 U.S.T. 969, with reference to the
Model Treaty and its commentary).
The commentary to Article 4, pars. 12 and 13 of the Model
Treaty explains the term "permanent home" as follows:
[T]his home must be permanent, that is to say, the
individual must have arranged and retained it for his
permanent use as opposed to staying at a particular
3 Both the Model Treaty and the commentary have been
subsequently modified by the Model Double Taxation Convention on
Income and on Capital, Report of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development Committee on Fiscal Affairs (1997).
However, Art. 4, par. 2, of the Model Treaty and its commentary
have remained substantially the same since 1977.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011