Paul J. Pekar - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          Xerox Corp. v. United States, 41 F.3d 647, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1994).            
          Accordingly, we proceed to consider the relationship between                
          section 59 and the double taxation prohibitions found in each of            
          the two treaties, the U.S.-U.K. treaty and the U.S.-Germany                 
          treaty.                                                                     
               A.  U.S.-U.K. Treaty                                                   
               Article 23 of the U.S.-U.K. treaty generally prohibits                 
          double taxation and provides to U.S. residents and citizens a               
          credit against their U.S. income tax in an "appropriate amount".            
          U.S.-U.K. treaty, art. 23(1).  An "appropriate amount" is defined           
          as that amount of tax paid to the United Kingdom, not to exceed             
          the limitations provided by U.S. law for that taxable year.  Id.            
          One of the limitations for the 1995 taxable year was the foreign            
          tax credit limitation of section 59.  Therefore, the U.S.-U.K.              
          treaty provides for the imposition of the tax credit limit, and             
          the treaty and the Code may be harmonized and the limit applied             
          to petitioner.                                                              
               Even if one were to argue that the U.S.-U.K. treaty                    
          provision for "limits of law for the taxable year" included only            
          those in effect when the treaty was adopted and that the Code and           
          the treaty conflicted, such a conflict does not work to                     
          petitioner's advantage.  If there is a conflict, the Code section           
          will supersede the treaty provision because of the "last-in-time"           
          rule.  See Lindsey v. Commissioner, supra.  Section 59 was added            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011