- 14 -
residing in Canada need not pay U.S. income tax greater
than the amount that would have been paid by a taxpayer who
is not a U.S. citizen. Petitioners argue that this means
that since they had no U.S.-source income in 1998, they
would not have been subject to alternative minimum tax if
they were not U.S. citizens. Therefore, petitioners argue,
the section 59(a)(2) limitation is not applicable to them
by reason of the provisions of article XXIV.
Finally, petitioners argue that this Court "has
previously determined that a conflict exists between
section 59(a)(2) and the U.S.-Canada treaty" in Jamieson
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-550, affd. without
published opinion 132 F.3d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
In support of their position that the treaty is the
last expression of the sovereign will of the United States,
petitioners rely on the fact that "the ratification of the
Third and Fourth Protocols in 1995 and 1997, [took place]
some nine and eleven years following the enactment of
section 59(a)(2)." Petitioners argue that treaty protocols
are the last expression of sovereign will of the
contracting parties even if the relevant treaty provision
is not amended. Moreover, petitioners point out that the
amendments made by articles 1, 3, and 12 of the Third
Protocol did affect the provisions at issue in this case,
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