- 17 -
is that the Treasury's position was not embraced by the Senate."
In the same vein, it is well established that a revenue procedure
is not a law binding upon the Court but is merely a statement of
the Commissioner's position. See Helvering v. New York Trust
Co., 292 U.S. 455, 468 (1934); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87
T.C. 214, 223 (1986). Accordingly, we conclude that neither the
Technical Explanation nor Rev. Proc. 80-18, supra, is to be
considered "the law of the United States" for the purposes of the
first sentence of Article 23(1) of the U.S.-U.K. Convention.
Consequently, we hold that they present no reason for us to
deviate from the intention of the high contracting parties as
evidenced by the structure of the U.S.-U.K. Convention and by the
plain meaning of the language of Article 23(c)(1).6
Moreover, despite respondent's contentions to the contrary,
we conclude that it is proper to consider the proposition that
the corporation that pays the dividend and the corresponding ACT
is the payor of the ACT for purposes of the foreign tax credit as
6 Respondent has argued alternatively that the signatories to
the U.S.-U.K. Convention intended to link the shareholder credit
to the corporate offset and that such intent is evidenced in the
positions taken by the Technical Explanation, Rev. Proc. 80-18,
1980-1 C.B. 623, and the Competent Authority Agreement. We note
that those documents were created after the negotiation of the
U.S.-U.K. Convention and that only Rev. Proc. 80-18, supra,
directly discusses the corporate offset. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded that the high contracting parties intended a result
contrary to the clear language and structure of the U.S.-U.K.
Convention.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011