- 6 -
the statute and the treaty can be harmoniously applied
or whether the provisions of the treaty override the
provisions of the statute, as petitioners contend.
In interpreting a treaty and a statute that pertain
to the same subject matter, the general rule is that the
provisions of both should be construed to be in harmony.
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888); see also
The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616 (1870); Samann v.
Commissioner, 313 F.2d 461, 463 (4th Cir. 1963), affg. 36
T.C. 1011 (1961); Am. Trust Co. v. Smyth, 247 F.2d 149,
152-153 (9th Cir. 1957). However, if the provisions of one
conflict with those of the other, then the one adopted last
in time generally prevails. See Chae Chan Ping v. United
States, 130 U.S. 581, 600 (1889); Whitney v. Robertson,
supra at 194; Pekar v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 158 (1999);
Lindsey v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 672 (1992), affd. without
published opinion 15 F.3d 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1994). As the
Supreme Court explained in Whitney v. Robertson, supra
at 194:
By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the
same footing, and made of like obligation, with
an act of legislation. Both are declared by that
instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and
no superior efficacy is given to either over the
other. When the two relate to the same subject,
the courts will always endeavor to construe them
so as to give effect to both, if that can be done
without violating the language of either; but if
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