Footnote:
*	Attorney at Law, State of Hawaii, U.S.A. Federal District for the State of Hawaii; Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Houston, U.S.A. (1986); Foreign Expert, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University
1)	Convention between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income of November 26, 1996 (hereinafter cited as Convention).
2)	Convention, at art. 30.
3)	"Tax treaty promises 'new era of trade' ". Bangkok Post, November 27, 1996.
4)	"Clinton Expected to Sign Tax Treaty", Bangkok Post, September 18, 1996.
5)	M. Dominic, Income Taxation and Foreign Investment in Developing Countries (Amsterdam, 1980) and C. Irish, International Double Taxation Agreements and Income Taxation at Source (1973) 23 I.C.L.Q. 292.
6)	Philip Baker. Double Taxation and International Tax Law . London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1991, at 280
7)	Ibid., p. 5-6.
8)	The Vienna Convention entered into force on January 17, 1980. See Sir Ian Sinclair, in International Fiscal Association; Interpretation of Tax Treaties (1986) Bull I.B.F.D. 75.
9)	David Brockway, Interpretation of Tax Treaties and their Relationship to Statutory Law--A U.S. Perspective, 35 Tax Conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation 619 (1983) at 627. See Lewenhaupt V. Commissioner 20 T.C.(U.S.) 151(1953).
10)	Discussing the purpose of double taxation agreements, the United States Supreme Court has stated the following: "...the general purpose of the treaty was not to assure complete and strict quality of treatment--a virtually impossible task in light of the different tax structures of the two nations--but rather, as appears from the preamble of the convention itself, to facilitate commercial exchange through the elimination of double taxation resulting from both countries levying on the same transaction or profit; an additional purpose was the prevention of fiscal evasion." Maximov v U.S. 373 U.S. 49; 10 L.Ed. 2d 184 at 188.
11)	Convention at art 28. See also Philip Baker. Double Taxation and International Tax Law, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1991.
12)	Convention, at art. 1.
13)	Ibid., at art. 2; see also D. Brockway, Interpretation of Tax Treaties and their Relationship to Statutory Law--A U.S. Perspective, 35 Tax Conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation 619 (1983) at 621
14)	Additionally all subsequent tax laws enacted that are deemed to be identical or substantially similar to the taxes already mentioned will also be covered by the Convention. Convention, at Art 2(2). The Convention, in keeping with the general practice of Double Taxation Treaties, also will not apply to local taxes, indirect taxes, and other taxes. See Philip Baker. Double Taxation and International Tax Law, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1991, at 67-70.
15)	Convention, at art 4(1). The test for residency will include domicile, residence, citizenship, place of management, and place of incorporation.
16)	Convention, at art. 4,(2).
17)	See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 70-424, 1970-2 C.B. 150 (agent in U.S. constitutes engaging in trade or business in the U.S.); Rev. Rul. 55-617, 1955-2 C.B. 774 (sales through commission agent in the U.S. treated as engaging in trade or business in the U.S.)
18)	Convention, at arts. 10(5),11(5),12(4),7(1).
19)	Ibid., at art. 7.
20)	I.R.C. Sec. 871(b),882(a), 864(c)(3)
21)	Wm. L. Burke. Report on Proposed United States Model Income Tax Treaty, 23 Harvard International Law Journal 219 at 250 (1982).
22)	Convention, at art 7(1).
23)	Ibid., at art. 7(2).
24)	Ibid., at art. 7(3).
25)	Ibid., at art. 7(5).
26)	Ibid., at art. 8(1).
27)	Ibid., at art 10(1)(2). 10 percent of the gross amount of the dividends will be taxable if the beneficial owner is a company which controls at least 10 percent of the voting power of the dividend paying company. 10 percent is the figure in all other cases.
28)	Convention, at article 11(1)(2). 10 percent of the gross amount if the interest is beneficially owned by a financial institution, or the interest is paid based on a debt from a sale on credit by a resident of the other state. In all other cases the tax charged shall not exceed 15 percent.
29)	Ibid., at art. 12(2).
30)	Ibid., at arts. 10(5), 11(5), 12(4)
31)	Wm. Burke, Report on Proposed Model Tax Treaty, 23 Harvard International Law Journal 219 (1982)at 259.
32)	Convention, at art. 15.
33)	Ibid., at art. 15(1).
34)	Ibid., at art. 15 (a)(b).
35)	Ibid., at art. 15 (1)(c).
36)	Ibid., at art. 16.
37)	This is a much lower level of contact with the situs state than has been proposed by Model treaties. See e.g. Wm. Burke, Report on the Proposed United States Model Treaty, 23 Harvard International Convention 219 (1982) at 295. The official commentary to the OCED Model Treaty expressly justifies special tax treatment for artists and athletes on the basis of "practical difficulties which often arise in taxing entertainers and athletes performing abroad." See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Report of the Fiscal Committee, MODEL DOUBLE TAXATION CONVENTION ON INCOME AND CAPITAL 70 (1977) at 134; art. 17, comment 2)(hereinafter cited as 1977 ICED MODEL TREATY REPORT)
38)	Convention, at art 19(3).
39)	Since the United States domestic law does not treat child support benefits as income, the recipient of these benefits is allowed a deduction for the amount of this benefit. Therefore, this article provides the other state with what may be a non-reciprocal benefit. See Wm. Burke, Report on the Proposed United States Model Treaty, 23 Harvard International Convention 219(1982)at 298, at art. 19(1). Convention, at art. 20.
40)	Ibid, at art. 21.
41)	Ibid, at art. 31.
42)	Ibid, at art. 22(1).
43)	Ibid, at art. 22(1)(a).
44)	Ibid, at art. 22(b).
45)	Ibid, at art. 22.
46)	Ibid, at art. 23.
47)	On this Article see D. Ward et al., "The Other Income Article of Income Tax Treaties" (1991) B.T.R. 352
48)	U.S. Letter Ruling 87-14-055.
49)	Subject to certain limits, United States domestic law allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to a foreign state. See generally E. Owens, THE FOREIGN TAX CREDIT(Harvard Law School International Program in Taxation:1961); E. Owens & G. Ball, THE INDIRECT CREDIT(Harvard law School International Program in Taxation: vol. 1, 1975, vol. 2 1979)
50)	Convention, at art. 25.
51)	Ibid. at art. 26.
52)	Ibid. at art. 27.
53)	As a practical matter such a person should present his or her case to the contracting authority as early as possible. Problems may arise if the aggrieved party notifies the competent authority while the case is pending litigation under the domestic law procedure as there may be a determination that review is not "justified". Burke, Report on the Proposed United States Model Treaty, 23 Harvard International Convention 219 (1982) at 312. However, a United States taxpayer presenting a case has a right to judicial review if the competent authority determines that his case is unsuitable for review. Rev Proc. 77-12, 1977-1 C.B.573.
54)	Convention, at art. 28.
55)	The United States has had difficulty in implementing provisions for assistance in collecting taxes included in treaties. Japan: Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Avoidance of Fiscal evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, March 8, 1971, United States-Japan at art @6; United Kingdom: Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Avoidance of Fiscal evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains, April 13, 1976, at art. 26
56)	Convention, at art. 28(1)
	Article Home