Search - convention

Point at issue According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the issue is whether as a non-resident the appellant should pay taxes of $3,473.69, $3,386.03, $3,055.91, $3,154.57 and $4,212 respectively for the 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years pursuant to s. 212(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and articles XI and XVIII of the Tax Convention between Canada and the United States (hereinafter “the Convention”). ... No 15 percent deduction has been made since 1984 from the amounts received as provided for in the Convention. ... At this point no taxes had to be paid on pensions and interest from Canada under the Convention between Canada and the U.S. ...

(the appellant) is a corporation incorporated in the United States and was a resident there for purposes of the Canada-United States Reciprocal Tax Convention, 1942 (the 1942 Convention). ... Tax Convention (S.C. 7 George VI, c. 21, as amended by 14 George VI, c. 27). ... That purpose appears most clearly from the preambles both to the original Convention and to the amending Convention of 1950. ...

What the appellant's R&D employees attended was a conference, not a convention. ... At page 367 (D.T.C. 6308) he said: The word “convention” is not defined in the Act. ... In my view these gatherings could be categorized best, under the Income Tax Act, as conventions. ...

The appellant relies upon Article XVIII of the Canada-Belgium [Income] Tax Convention, which reads: Article X VIII Pensions and Annuities 1. ... The convention was signed in the English, French and Netherlands languages, each being equally authentic. Subsections 5(1) and (2) of the Canada-Belgium Income Tax Convention Act, 1976 provided: (1) The Convention entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of Belgium, set out in Schedule II, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada during such period as, by its terms, the Convention is in force. (2) INCONSISTENT LAWS — In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Part, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Part and the Convention prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. ...

These words are defined neither in the Model Convention nor in the Tax Treaty. ...   [39]     In 1999 Article 3(2) of the Model Convention, was amended as follows: 2.   ... Expert Evidence   [41]     The appellant produced several expert witnesses to explain Dutch law and the development of the OECD Model Conventions and the Commentaries on the Model Conventions.   ...

Convention does not remove the benefit sought from section 245. It is the Act, not the Convention, that imposes the tax. ... Convention restricts the operation of section 245. Canada is a party to a large number of income tax conventions- over 50, and more are being negotiated. ... Convention. Accordingly the Convention must prevail and the sale must be treated as giving rise to a capital gain which, under Article XIII of the Convention, is taxable only in the United States. ...

Les rentes provenant d’un État contractant et payées à un résident de l’autre État contractant sont imposables dans l’État d’où elles proviennent. [4] The convention was signed in the English, French and Netherlands languages, each being equally authentic. [5] Subsections 5(1) and (2) of the Canada-Belgium Income Tax Convention Act, 1976 provided: (1) The Convention entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of Belgium, set out in Schedule II, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada during such period as, by its terms, the Convention is in force. (2) INCONSISTENT LAWS — In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Part, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Part and the Convention prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. [6] It is interesting to note, parenthetically, that paragraph 110(1)(f) permits, in computing taxable income, a deduction for: (f) — any social assistance payment made on the basis of a means, needs or income test and included because of clause 56(1)(a)(i)(A) or paragraph 56(1)(u) in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year or any amount that is (i) an amount exempt from income tax in Canada because of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada. [7] The section obviously has no application. ... Except when an international convention provides otherwise, every employee, of whatever nationality, who works in Belgium and whose employer either has its seat in Belgium or has a plant or office there to which the employee is attached, is subject to the Belgian social security system. This territoriality principle, whose strict application often resulted in double payments being due, has been attenuated by international bilateral or multilateral conventions. ...

  [20]     Article XIII of the Canada- US Tax Convention provides in part as follows:   1. ...   [22]     As well in the Technical Explanation provided for this Article of the Convention it is stated that:   Under paragraph 3(a) of Article XIII of the Convention, real property situated in the United States includes real property (as defined in Article VI (Income from Real Property) of the Convention) situated in the United States and a United States real property interest. ... Tax Convention.   [24]     As noted by Justice Hershfield in Meyer, the provisions of Article XXVI of the Canada- US Tax Convention may also be available to assist the Appellant. ...

The appellant in his claim for exemption relies primarily upon the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the Canada-United Kingdom Income Tax Convention. ... Paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 17 of the Canada-United Kingdom Income Tax Convention read as follows: 1. ... This wording, which came into effect in 1985, was the result of an amendment contained in the second protocol to the 1978 convention. ...

I propose to reproduce those Articles in the Conventions that are of relevance. ... Articles 2(1) and 3 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf provide: 2(1). ... It should not go unnoticed that the Territorial Sea Convention speaks of “sovereignty” and the right of “innocent passage”; the Fishing Convention speaks of “special interests”; the Continental Shelf Convention speaks of “sovereign rights” for certain purposes which are not to affect the legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas and the High Seas Convention speaks of “freedom of navigation”. ...