J. E. Ryckman, 163 T. C. 3, filed 8/1/24, owes the Canadian Revenue Authority $200K in tax, whether USD or CAD not stated. So CRA filed an MCAR (Mutual Collection Assistance Request), per the 1995 consolidated tax treaty, with the US competent authority, who bucked it over to IRS. IRS hit J. E. with a NFTL. J. E. wants a CDP, but IRS says, no, the treaty says if Canada certifies that all remedies exhausted, game over.

But is it?

Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland says yes. The treaty says all remedies exhausted, so no CDP. No conflict between the 1998 IRS Reorganization Act, which gave us the CDP régime three (count ’em, three) years after the final touches to the tax treaty with our Neighbour to the North, and said treaty.

We all know that treaties are equal to statutes, and are to be construed broadly to give effect to the intentions of the contracting parties.

So with a dictionary chaw or two, and a bunch full-page footnotes (hi, Judge Holmes), Judge Tex Copeland says Tax Court has no jurisdiction, no CDP or NOD necessary, and IRS can go collect. Ch J Kerrigan, and Judges Foley, Nega, Jones, Greaves, and Marshall agree. Judge Jones concurs strongly. The dissent would create rights not contemplated by the treaty. Judges Foley, Nega and Copeland agree.

But it’s a cliffhanger, as six (count ’em, six) judges dissent, namely, viz., and to wit Judges Urda, Toro, Pugh, Buch, Ashford and Weiler. They find “irreconcilable conflict” between the 1995 treaty and the 1998 statute, therefore the statute , later in time, rules.

Taishoff says the dissent makes hash of the intent of the parties, giving the foreign nonpayer a double dip. If a Canadian claim is to be collected with a mandated short stop at a US CDP, what’s to stop Appeals from reducing the claim via a PPIA, or giving petitioner CNC status, on either of which Tax Court signs off, notwithstanding that the petitioner had a shot at those remedies in Canada and lost?