Estate of Avrom A. Silver, Deceased, Bonny Fern Silver, Kenneth Kirsh, and Ronald Faust, Executors - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               Government agencies charged with their negotiation and                 
               enforcement is given great weight”.  United States v.                  
               Stuart, supra at 369 (citing Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366                   
               U.S. 187, 194 (1961)).                                                 
               * * * It is the role of the judiciary to interpret                     
               international conventions and to enforce domestic                      
               rights arising from them.  See Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366                 
               U.S. 187 (1961); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939);                  
               Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447 (1913); United States                  
               v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886).  Tax treaties are                    
               purposive, and, accordingly, we should consider the                    
               perceived underlying intent or purpose of the treaty                   
               provision.  See, e.g., Estate of Burghardt v.                          
               Commissioner, * * * [80 T.C. 705, 717 (1983), affd.                    
               without published opinion 734 F.2d 3 (3d Cir. 1984)]                   
               (treating a reference to a “specific exemption” in a                   
               U.S.-Italy estate tax treaty as not limited to an                      
               exemption as such, but included a subsequently enacted                 
               unified credit having the same function as an                          
               exemption); Smith, “Tax Treaty Interpretation by the                   
               Judiciary”, 49 Tax Law. 845, 858-867 (1996).  In                       
               addressing the issues of this case, we shall keep at                   
               the forefront our role in the interpretation of                        
               conventions.                                                           
               We examine the underlying intent and purpose of the                    
          provision in the 1995 Protocol to clarify whether the relevant              
          language of article XXIX B overrides section 2106 in this                   
          instance by treating the Canadian-registered charities at issue             
          as U.S. residents, even though the bequests were funded by                  
          sources outside the United States.                                          
               The technical explanation accompanying the 1995 Protocol               
          states:                                                                     
               Under paragraph 1 of Article XXIX B, a U.S. estate tax                 
               deduction also will be allowed for a bequest by a                      
               Canadian resident (as defined under Article IV                         
               (Residence)) to a qualifying exempt organization that                  
               is a Canadian corporation.  However, paragraph 1 does                  
               not allow a deduction for U.S. estate tax purposes with                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011