- 7 -
purposes of section 7520.6 See also Estate of Cook v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-170, affd. 349 F.3d 850 (5th Cir.
2003). However, we do not believe our holding in Estate of
Gribauskas helps petitioner here. Article 2(2) of the U.S.-
Israel Income Tax Treaty, Hein’s No. KAV 971, at viii, provides
that “Any * * * term used in this Convention and not defined in
this Convention shall, unless the context otherwise requires,
have the meaning which it has under the laws of the Contracting
State whose tax is being determined.” (Emphasis added.) As
noted, “annuities” as used in the treaty is defined in the
treaty. The treaty definition, as pertinent here, provides that
“annuities” means a stated sum paid periodically at stated times
“under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate
and full consideration (other than services rendered).”
In Estate of Gribauskas, in holding that annual payments of
a lottery prize were an “annuity” for purposes of section 7520,
we decided that it was the characteristics of the payment stream
as fixed and periodic that generally determined whether the
6 Petitioner notes that in Estate of Gribauskas, we
described our holding as a conclusion that annual payments of
lottery winnings “constitute an annuity for tax purposes and
within the meaning of section 7520". Estate of Gribauskas v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 142, 159 (2001)(emphasis added). As
discussed hereinafter, our conclusion in this case is based upon
a construction of the term “annuities” as defined in the U.S.-
Israel Income Tax Treaty. Accordingly, we express no opinion
regarding the extent to which our holding in Estate of Gribauskas
may impact the meaning of “annuity” as used elsewhere in the
Internal Revenue Code.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011