- 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