Estate of Avrom A. Silver, Deceased, Bonny Fern Silver, Kenneth Kirsh, and Ronald Faust, Executors - Page 7

                                        - 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