| Abstrakt: |
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("VCLT") contemplates the interpretation of treaties in its Articles 31, 32 and 33, giving the framework to be followed by one who is engaged in this difficult endeavor. Tax treaties are, first and foremost, treaties. Therefore, the VCLT is the leading guide for their interpretation. The United States has sixty-eight income tax treaties in force. If one logs on any website provider of case-law services and types "tax treaty," more than six hundred cases will pop up. After analyzing the key issues related to the VCLT and tax treaty interpretation in the United States, this Article focuses on the study of some tax treaty cases to examine whether or not the courts applied the VCLT framework when delivering their opinions, even if it was applied instinctively, but theorizing a deep approach to the interpretation of tax treaties is not its intent. Regardless of the inference of Savigny and other jurists that "interpretation is an art" and "cannot be learned and governed by any specific rules," in accordance with the preponderant point of view, customary international law has developed rules on interpretation of treaties, which are accurately contemplated in the VCLT. Still, the American judiciary does not exactly follow its rules. Nonetheless, the U.S. court decisions that have already applied the interpretation rules of the VCLT--the vast majority of them out of the arena of tax treaties--are "especially valuable" as substantiation of international law since they are rendered by courts of a nation not a party to the Convention, and their importance is further reinforced because the United States, as the most active treaty-maker in the world, decidedly influences the law applicable to treaties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
