A 1994 treaty between the US and France was intended to avoid income being taxed by both countries, and it should be interpreted in that light, two former expatriates told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Matthew and Katherine Christensen argued that treaty‘s language “should be liberally interpreted” to effectuate its intended purpose: to avoid having to pay taxes for the same income to two countries. Here, they seek to use the treaty to use their French capital gains as a foreign tax credit to offset a 3.8% tax on net investment income created by the ...