Robert M. and Pamela Price - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
                  The Taxpayer is taking the position that                            
                  paragraph 1 of Article XXIV was enacted to                          
                  eliminate double taxation of citizens of the                        
                  U.S. and that Paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Article                   
                  XXIV override U.S. Domestic tax law. Therefore                      
                  the foreign tax credit to be allowed by the U.S.                    
                  under the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention should not                     
                  be affected by the 90% limitation in the U.S. AMT                   
                  Rules.                                                              

             Respondent concedes that this Form 8833 disclosed                        
             petitioners' position, that a treaty of the United States                
             overrules or modifies an internal revenue law, as required               
             by section 6114.                                                         
                  Respondent mailed a notice of deficiency to                         
             petitioners with respect to their U.S. return.  In that                  
             notice, respondent determined that petitioners' alternative              
             minimum tax for 1998 is $50,200.  Respondent determined                  
             that petitioners' precredit alternative minimum tax was                  
             $501,999, and that their alternative minimum tax foreign                 
             tax credit was limited to $451,799, or 90 percent, of that               
             precredit amount.  In effect, respondent determined that                 
             petitioners' alternative minimum tax foreign tax credit                  
             for 1998 is subject to limitation under section 59(a)(2),                
             contrary to the position set forth by petitioners on their               
             Form 8833.                                                               
                  This case requires us to examine section 59(a)(2) and               
             the provisions of the U.S.-Canada treaty dealing with the                
             elimination of double taxation.  We must determine whether               





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011