Introduction
This is the fifth in a series of posts about “treaty based” foreign tax credits. Previous posts have discussed how the Bruyea and Christensen cases resulted in court rulings that U.S. tax treaties can create a foreign tax credit that is separate from and independent from tax credits allowed under the Internal Revenue Code. Of course, this depends on the terms of the treaty.
The facts as described in the Bruyea breif – filed September 2, 2025
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that the income tax treaty between the United States and Canada (the “Canada Treaty”)1 allows a U.S. citizen resident in Canada to claim a treaty-based foreign tax credit against the net investment income tax (the “NIIT”) imposed by Section 1411 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. — the “Code”).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
For over 80 years, Canada and the United States have had income tax treaties in place, with the primary goal of preventing double taxation of the same income. Article XXIV of the Canada Treaty, entitled “Elimination from Double Taxation,” advances this purpose by providing that certain taxes imposed by each country are eligible for a foreign tax credit — a “treaty-based foreign tax credit” — even if otherwise not permitted under the internal laws of either country.
In 2010, Congress enacted the net investment income tax, the NIIT, which imposes a 3.8 percent tax on certain investment income generated by U.S. citizens (including those living abroad) and U.S. residents. Code Sec. 1411. For the 2015 tax year at issue, the Appellee, Paul Bruyea (the “Taxpayer”) was subject both to (1) Canadian taxation by virtue of his Canadian tax residency and (2) U.S. taxation by virtue of his U.S. citizenship. In that year, he sold real property located in Canada and paid more Canadian federal and provincial income taxes on that real estate gain than what he would have owed in total U.S. income tax and NIIT. As the Code does not provide a foreign tax credit — a “Code-based foreign tax credit” — against the NIIT, the IRS collected the NIIT on that same investment income on which he paid tax to Canada, resulting in double taxation. Here, the Taxpayer claims entitlement to a treaty-based foreign tax credit under Article XXIV of the Canada Treaty to offset the NIIT.
Framing the issue in the Bruyea case in simple terms:
The argument for allowing the credit: Bruyue argues that one would reasonably interpret the Canada/US tax treaty to allow a U.S. resident or citizen a foreign tax credit in the amount of the Canadian tax paid on that same income taxable, received at that same time, under the Internal Revenue Code.
The argument for denying the credit: U.S. Treasury argues that credit for the Canadian taxes paid on the income taxed by the United States is allowable ONLY to the extent that U.S. internal law (Internal Revenue Code) allows the credit.
The relevant text in Article XXIV of the Canada U.S. tax treaty reads:
Article XXIV
Elimination of Double Taxation1. In the case of the United States, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States (as it may be amended from time to time without changing the general principle hereof), the United States shall allow to a citizen or resident of the United States, or to a company electing to be treated as a domestic corporation, as a credit against the United States tax on income the appropriate amount of income tax paid or accrued to Canada; and, in the case of a company which is a resident of the United States owning at least 10 per cent of the voting stock of a company which is a resident of Canada from which it receives dividends in any taxable year, the United States shall allow as a credit against the United States tax on income the appropriate amount of income tax paid or accrued to Canada by that company with respect to the profits out of which such dividends are paid.
The issue therefore is:
Can the Internal Revenue Code be used to deny the taxpayer a credit when the Canada/US tax treaty seems to require that the credit be given?
U.S. Treasury argues that tax treaties cannot create a right to a foreign tax credit that extends beyond the statutory right found in the Internal Revenue Code. As noted in The Tax Adviser:
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a court of national jurisdiction, issued two rulings in favor of U.S. citizens living abroad by allowing a treaty–based foreign tax credit (FTC) to offset the net investment income tax (NIIT) (Bruyea, 174 Fed. Cl. 238 (2024), and Christensen, 168 Fed. Cl. 263 (2023)). Both cases are pending appeal in the Federal Circuit (Bruyea, No. 25–1563 (Fed. Cir. 3/20/25) (appeal docketed); Christensen, No. 24–1284 (Fed. Cir. 12/22/23) (appeal docketed)). If upheld, the outcome of these cases could help alleviate the burden of double taxation for many U.S. citizens living abroad. This item explores practical considerations for taxpayers while these cases are being litigated.
On April 15, 2025 the Court approved a motion to consolidate the Bruyea and Chreistensen cases for hearing.
On September 2, 2025 Mr. Bruyea’s lawyers filed their legal argument in support of Mr. Bruyea. It is very well organized and details:
1. The proper way to read a tax treaty; and
2. Why the Canada/US tax treaty should be interpreted to create a foreign tax credit that is independent of the Internal Revenue Code.
Treasury’s decision to appeal the Bruyea and Christensen cases is strong evidence of animus toward Americans abroad.
John Richardson – Follow me on X.com at @Expatriationlaw
Appendix – The First five Posts …
The four previous posts discussed the foreign tax credit rules in the context of the NIIT (“Net Investment Income Tax“). For a description of the first four posts, see the Appendix to this post.
The first post detailed the provisions of the U.S. France tax treaty which created the “three bite rule”. By creating the “three bite rule” the U.S. France treaty was used to create a treaty based foreign tax credit.
The second post (also based on the U.S. France tax treaty) described how the U.S. France tax treaty was used to create an independent treaty based foreign tax credit. The purpose was to allow for a foreign tax credit against the NIIT (“Net Investment Income Tax”). Although a major breakthrough, it’s important to note that this case (Christensen):
1. Found that the treaty should be interpreted to create an a foreign tax credit that was independent of the credits allowed under the Internal Revenue Code;
2. Specifically ruled that the language “subject to the limitations of the law of the United States” (found in the opening paragraph of the double taxation clause) should be interpreted to preclude a foreign tax credit for payment of foreign tax on foreign investment income.
The third post continued the “NIIT Tax Treaty Chronicles”. Specifically, this post detailed how Judge Solomson, in the case of Paul Bruyea, determined that (contrary to Judge Blank’s ruling in Christensen) that the “subject to the limitations of the law of the United States”clause in Article XXIV, Paragraph 1:
1. Does NOT preclude the use of a foreign tax credit to offset the NIIT; and
2. That Article XXIV, Paragraph 1 allows a U.S. citizen or U.S. resident living in Canada to use taxes paid to Canada as a credit against the U.S. NIIT!
Judge Blank in Christensen and Judge Solomson in Bruyea reached opposite conclusions with respect to whether the following clause (as represented in the 2016 U.S. Model Tax Treaty) can be used to create a foreign tax credit which is independent of the foreign tax credit rules in the Internal Revenue Code (Sections 27, 901 and 904).
Article 23
RELIEF FROM DOUBLE TAXATION
1. In the case of __________, double taxation will be relieved as follows:
2. In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States (as it may be amended from time to time without changing the general principle hereof), the United States shall allow to a resident or citizen of the United States as a credit against the United States tax on income applicable to residents and citizens:
a) the income tax paid or accrued to __________ by or on behalf of such resident or citizen; and
Therefore, I expect that this issue has NOT been fully resolved.
Judge Solomson’s decision in Bruyea is a very exciting decision. It goes FAR beyond the decision in Christensen and opens the door to arguing that many (if not all) U.S. treaties guarantee that the NIIT can be offset by foreign tax credits!!
The fourth post focused on Judge Solomson’s comments in Bruyea about when a later in time statute can override an earlier treaty. In general he was of the view that a later statute can override an earlier treaty only when Congress expresses a clear intent to overrule the treaty.
The fifth post reveals Treasury’s decision to appeal both the Bruyea and Christensen cases.