- 14 - frequently. For this purpose regard must be had to stays made by the individual not only at the permanent home in the State in question but also at any other place in the same State. Accordingly, where doubt exists as to an individual's "[center] of vital interest", the commentary tips the balance in favor of the country where the individual stays most frequently. During 1990, petitioner spent only 120 days in Montreal; he spent the remainder of the year in the United States, including 160 days in Florida and 50 days in South Carolina. Because petitioner spent more time in the United States than in Canada during 1990, it appears that petitioner had a habitual abode in the United States. On the basis of the analysis above, we think that, even if we had applied the Canada Convention in the instant case, petitioners would not have established that petitioner was a Canadian, as opposed to a U.S., resident for tax purposes during 1990. We have carefully considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them to be either without merit or unnecessary to reach. Because petitioners have not shown that this Court committed substantial error in deciding the instant case, we deny petitioners' motion for reconsideration. On the basis of the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011