Article 24 assures that citizens — U.S. Income Tax Treaty

entities deriving their status in a State (paragraph 1), and residents of a Contracting State (paragraphs 2 through 5), will not be subject to discriminatory taxation in the other State. For this purpose, non-discrimination means providing national treatment.

Paragraph 1 provides that a citizen of one of the States or a legal person, partnership or association deriving its status as such from the laws of one of the States may not be subject to taxation or connected requirements in the other Contracting State that are other or more burdensome than the taxes and connected requirements imposed upon a citizen or entity of that other Contracting State in the same circumstances. These persons are afforded protection under this paragraph even if they are not residents of either State. Thus, a U.S. citizen who is resident in a third country is entitled, under this paragraph, to the same treatment by Sweden as a Swedish citizen who is in similar circumstances ( i.e ., who is resident in a third country).

Paragraph 1 clarifies that this paragraph does not obligate the United States to apply the same taxing regime to a Swedish citizen who is not resident in the United States and a U.S. citizen who is not resident in the United States. Paragraph 1 applies only when the citizens of the two States are in the same circumstances. United States citizens who are not residents of the United States but who are, nevertheless, subject to United States tax on their worldwide income, are not in the same circumstances with respect to United States taxation as citizens of Sweden who are not United


                                                                     - **`50`**

States residents. Therefore, Article 24 would not entitle a Swedish citizen not resident in the United States to the net basis taxation of U.S. source dividends or other investment income that applies to a U.S. citizen not resident in the United States.

Paragraph 2 provides that a permanent establishment in one of the States of an enterprise of the other Contracting State may not be less favorably taxed in the first-mentioned State than an enterprise of that first-mentioned State that is carrying on the same activities in the first-mentioned State. This provision, however, does not obligate a Contracting State to grant to a resident of the other any personal allowances, reliefs, and other reductions for taxation purposes, that it grants to its own residents on account of their civil status or family responsibilities. Thus, if an individual resident in Sweden owns a Swedish enterprise that has a permanent establishment in the United States, in assessing income tax on the profits attributable to the permanent establishment, the United States is not obligated to allow to the Swedish resident the personal allowances for himself and his family that would be permitted if the permanent establishment were a sole proprietorship owned and operated by a U.S. resident.

Section 1446 of the Code imposes on any partnership with income that is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business the obligation to withhold tax on amounts allocable to a foreign partner. In the context of the Convention, this obligation applies with respect to a Swedish resident partner's share of the partnership income attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment. There is no similar obligation with respect to the distributive shares of U.S. resident partners. It is understood, however, that this distinction is not a form of discrimination within the meaning of paragraph 2. No distinction is made between U.S. and Swedish partnerships, since the law requires that partnerships of both domiciles withhold tax in respect of the partnership shares of non-U.S. partners. In distinguishing between U.S. and Swedish partners, the requirement to withhold on the Swedish but not the U.S. partner's share is not discriminatory taxation, but, like other withholding on nonresident aliens, is merely a reasonable method for the collection of tax from persons who are not continually present in the United States, and as to whom it otherwise may be difficult for the United States to enforce its tax jurisdiction. If tax has been overwithheld, the partner can, as in other cases of overwithholding, file for a refund. (The relationship between paragraph 2 and the imposition of the branch tax is dealt with below in the discussion of paragraph 5.)

Paragraph 3 prohibits discrimination in the allowance of deductions. When an enterprise of one of the States pays interest, royalties or other disbursements to a resident of the other State, the first-mentioned State must allow a deduction for those payments in computing the taxable profits of the enterprise under the same


                                                                 - **`51`**

conditions as if the payment had been made to a resident of the first-mentioned State. An exception to this rule is provided for cases where the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 9 (Associated enterprises), paragraph 5 of Article 11 (Interest) or paragraph 4 of Article 12 (Royalties) apply, because these provisions permit the denial of deductions in certain circumstances in respect of transactions between related persons. The term "other disbursements" is understood to include a reasonable allocation of executive and general administrative expenses, research and development expenses and other expenses incurred for the benefit of a group of related persons which includes the person incurring the expense.

The rules under section 163(j) of the Code relating to earnings-stripping are not discriminatory within the meaning of paragraph 3. First, section 163(j) applies equally to interest paid to domestic or foreign related parties, as interest paid to all domestic tax-exempt entities related to the payor corporation (under a greater than 50% ownership test) is subject to the provision. Second, as noted above, paragraph 3 does not apply to payments falling under Article 9(1) or 11(5), relating to transactions not conducted in accordance with the arm's length standard. Paragraph 3 reflects the negotiators' understanding that Article 9 applies to issues relating to thin capitalization, and that adjustments to the amount of a deduction for interest must be consistent with the arm's length principles of paragraph 1 of Article 9 as those principles are examined and explained in OECD publications regarding thin capitalization. The approach taken by section 163(j) is consistent with this description.

Paragraph 4 requires that a Contracting State not impose other or more burdensome taxation or connected requirements on an enterprise of that State which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by residents of the other State, than the taxation or connected requirements which it imposes on other similar enterprises of that first-mentioned State.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 ("TRA") introduced section 367(e)(2) of the Code which changed the rules for taxing corporations on certain distributions they make in liquidation. Prior to the TRA, corporations were not taxed on distributions of appreciated property in complete liquidation, although nonliquidating distributions of the same property, with several exceptions, resulted in corporate-level tax. in part to eliminate this disparity, the law now generally taxes corporations on the liquidating distribution of appreciated property. The Code provides an exception in the case of distributions by 80 percent or more controlled subsidiaries to their parent corporations, on the theory that the built-in gain in the asset will be recognized when the parent sells or distributes the asset. This exception does not apply to distributions to parent corporations that are tax-exempt organizations or, except to the extent provided in regulations,


                                                                     - **`52`**

foreign corporations. The policy of the legislation is to collect one corporate-level tax on the liquidating distribution of appreciated property; if and only if that tax can be collected on a subsequent sale or distribution does the legislation defer the tax. It is understood that the inapplicability of the exception to the tax on distributions to foreign parent corporations does not conflict with paragraph 4 of the Article. While a liquidating distribution to a U.S. parent will not be taxed, and, except to the extent provided in regulations, a liquidating distribution to a foreign parent will, paragraph 4 of the Article merely prohibits discrimination among corporate taxpayers on the basis of U.S. or foreign stock ownership. Eligibility for the exception to the tax on liquidating distributions for distributions to non-exempt, U.S. corporate parents is not based upon the nationality of the owners of the distributing corporation, but is based upon whether such owners would be subject to corporate tax if they subsequently sold or distributed the same property. Thus, the exception does not apply to distributions to persons which would not be so subject -not only foreign corporations, but also tax-exempt organizations.

For the reasons given above in connection with the discussion of paragraph 2 of the Article, it is also understood that the provision in section 1446 of the Code for withholding of tax on non-U.S. partners does not violate paragraph 4 of the Article.

It is further understood that the ineligibility of a U.S. corporation with nonresident alien shareholders to make an election to be an "S" corporation does not violate paragraph 4 of the Article. If a corporation elects to be an S corporation (requiring 35 or fewer shareholders), it is generally not subject to income tax and the shareholders take into account their pro-rata shares of the corporation's items of income, loss, deduction or credit. (The purpose of the provision is to allow an individual or small group of individuals to conduct business in corporate form while paying taxes at individual rates as if the business were conducted directly.) A nonresident alien does not pay U.S. tax on a net basis, and, thus, does not generally take into account items of loss, deduction or credit. Thus, the S corporation provisions do not exclude corporations with nonresident alien shareholders because such shareholders are foreign, but only because they are not net basis taxpayers. The provisions also exclude corporations with other types of shareholders where the purpose of the provisions cannot be fulfilled or their mechanics implemented. For example, corporations with corporate shareholders are excluded because the purpose of the provisions to permit individuals to conduct a business in corporate form at individual tax rates would not be furthered by their inclusion.

Paragraph 5 of the Article specifies that no provision of the Article will prevent either Contracting State from imposing the branch tax described in paragraph 8 of Article 10 (Dividends). Thus, even if the branch tax were judged to violate the provisions


- **`53`**

of paragraphs 2 or 4 of the Article, neither Contracting State would be constrained from imposing the tax.

As noted above, notwithstanding the specification of taxes covered by the Convention in Article 2 (Taxes covered), for purposes of providing nondiscrimination protection this Article applies to taxes of every kind and description imposed by one of the States or a political subdivision or local authority thereof. Customs duties are not considered to be taxes for this purpose.

The saving clause of paragraph 4 of Article 1 (Personal scope) does not apply to this Article, by virtue of the exceptions in subparagraph 5(a). Thus, a U.S. citizen who is resident in Sweden may claim benefits in the United States under this Article.