- 7 -
Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888); Square D Co. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 299, 313 (2002). The estate argues that
this paragraph in the 1995 Protocol overrides section 2106,
allows the Canadian-registered charities to be treated as U.S.
residents, and allows the estate the full charitable deduction.
Respondent argues that the convention, as amended by the 1995
Protocol, does not change the result from that under section
2106.
With regard to interpreting the 1995 Protocol, we stated in
N.W. Life Assurance Co. of Can. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 363,
378-379 (1996):
The goal of convention interpretation is to “give
the specific words of a * * * [convention] a meaning
consistent with the genuine shared expectations of the
contracting parties”. Maximov v. United States, 299
F.2d 565, 568 (2d Cir. 1962), affd. 373 U.S. 49 (1963).
Courts liberally construe treaties to give effect to
their purpose. United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353,
368 (1989); Bacardi Corp. of Am. v. Domenech, 311 U.S.
150, 163 (1940). * * * “Although not conclusive, the
meaning attributed to treaty provisions by the
7(...continued)
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 the two are inconsistent, the one last
in date will control the other, provided always the
stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-
executing. * * *
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011