Her Majesty Queen in Right of Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson
Decision Date | 23 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 77-2185,77-2185 |
Citation | 597 F.2d 1161 |
Parties | HER MAJESTY the QUEEN IN RIGHT OF the PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. John Raymond GILBERTSON, Leonard Rosenthal, Jack Sylvester, Frank Jay Cobbs, Claude Marian Johns, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Donald R. Stark (argued), of Williams, Stark, Hiefield, Norville & Griffin, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.
Andrew P. Kerr (argued), of Gilbertson, Brownstein, Sweeney & Kerr, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before GOODWIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW:
The plaintiff, the Canadian Province of British Columbia, filed this diversity action against the defendants (John Raymond Gilbertson, Leonard Rosenthal, Jack Sylvester, Frank Jay Cobbs, and Claude Marian Johns) in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. British Columbia sought recovery on a judgment for taxes which had been awarded against the defendants by a British Columbia court. The defendants made a F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. After a hearing before a United States magistrate, the magistrate issued a proposed "Recommendation and Order" dismissing the action. The magistrate concluded that the foreign judgment for taxes would not be recognized by the courts of Oregon. British Columbia moved for review of the magistrate's order under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the question, the district judge entered an order dismissing the plaintiff's case. The order of the district court incorporating the thoughtful analysis by the magistrate is printed at 433 F.Supp. 410 (D.Or.1977). British Columbia appealed the dismissal and this court has jurisdiction of that appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and affirm the dismissal.
FACTS
The defendants are all citizens of Oregon who received income from logging operations in British Columbia. This income was apparently subject to taxation under the British Columbia Logging Tax Act. British Columbia originally assessed an amount of $210,600.00 for the logging tax against the defendants. This amount was reduced to $173,252.00 after the defendants appealed the assessment to the taxing authorities.
British Columbia then served a "Notice of Intention to Enforce Payment" on the defendants in the United States, and filed a certificate of assessment in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. This certificate was for $195,929.50 (a penalty and interest were included), and under the laws of British Columbia its filing gave it the same effect as a judgment of the court. British Columbia then instituted the present action in the United States. It was dismissed because the court
below concluded that the Oregon courts would follow the "revenue rule." Stated simply, the revenue rule merely provides that the courts of one jurisdiction do not recognize the revenue laws of another jurisdiction. 1
QUESTION PRESENTED
The only issue on appeal is whether the courts of the United States would enforce a judgment rendered for taxes by the courts of a foreign government.
DISCUSSION
In a diversity action, a federal district court applies the law of the forum state. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Not only the substantive law, but also the conflicts of law rules of the forum are applied in diversity actions. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 62 S.Ct. 1284, 86 L.Ed. 1757 (1941). Normally, this would automatically limit our analysis to the law of Oregon since it is the forum state in the present case. However, the question presented here carries foreign relations overtones which may create an inference that this should not be decided merely by reference to Oregon law. 2 Nevertheless, we do not need to decide whether federal or state law should control, since the conclusion we reach would be the same under either Oregon or federal law. 3
Generally, judgments from a foreign country are recognized by the courts of this country when the general principles of comity are satisfied. 4 Two often-stated exceptions to comity occur when the judgment is based on either the tax (the revenue rule) or penal laws of the foreign country. 5 Before comity may be extended, generally there is a requirement of reciprocity, which is the principle that the courts of one jurisdiction will recognize a judgment from a Lord Mansfield is generally credited as being the first to express the revenue rule. In 1775, while deciding a contract action, he said that ". . . no country ever takes notice of the revenue laws of another." Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng.Rep. 1120, 1121 (1775). A few years later, Lord Mansfield had occasion to repeat the rule in another case where he said: "One nation does not take notice of the revenue laws of another." Planche v. Fletcher, 99 Eng.Rep. 164, 165 (1779). Although the rule may have only been dicta to these cases, since its inception it has become so well recognized that this appears to be the first time that a foreign nation has sought to enforce a tax judgment in the courts of the United States. 7
second jurisdiction only if the courts of the second jurisdiction would recognize a judgment from the first jurisdiction's courts. 6 An analysis of both the revenue rule and reciprocity requirement supports our ultimate conclusion that British Columbia failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
Judge Learned Hand best expressed the purpose behind the revenue rule:
Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F.2d 600, 604 (2d Cir. 1929) (L. Hand, J., concurring), Aff'd on other grounds, 281 U.S. 18, 50 S.Ct. 175, 74 L.Ed. 673 (1930). While this reasoning no longer prevents a state from enforcing its tax judgment in the courts of a sister state because of the full faith and credit clause, 8 Although the Supreme Court has never had occasion to address the question of whether the revenue rule would prevent a foreign country from enforcing its tax judgment in the courts of the United States, the indications are strong that the Court would reach the same result as we reach in the present case. Both the majority and the dissenting opinion in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964), discussed the rule in a spirit which indicates a continued recognition of the revenue rule in the international sphere. 10
this same rationale has continued validity in the international context. Additionally, if the court below was compelled to recognize the tax judgment from a foreign nation, it would have the effect of furthering the governmental interests of a foreign country, something which our courts customarily refuse to do. 9
There is no Oregon case law on point. The only inference which can be drawn from Oregon statutory law supports our conclusion. In 1977, Oregon adopted the Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act. This provides that judgments from a foreign country for a sum of money which meet certain requirements are enforceable in the Oregon courts. However, the Act defines the judgments to which it applies as "(a)ny judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery to a sum of money, Other than a judgment for taxes . . . ." (emphasis added) 1977 Or. Laws, S.B. 28 § 1(2). The only conclusion which can be drawn from this specific exclusion is that the Oregon legislature continues to recognize the revenue rule.
The political branches of the United States Government have entered into two tax treaties with the Canadian Government. These treaties are quite extensive; they address various questions arising from situations where individuals or corporations as residents, or citizens of one country, own property or do business in the other country. One section provides for the exchange of information between the two countries for the purpose of preventing international tax evasion. This is as close as the treaties come to providing for enforcement...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sun Oil Company v. Wortman
... ... statute does not extinguish the underlying right but merely causes the remedy to be withheld. See ... See, e.g., Her Majesty, Queen in Right of Province of British Columbia ... Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1163-1166, and n. 8 (CA9 1979); ... ...
-
U.S. v. Boots
... ... Page 583 ... and the Province of Nova Scotia of excise duties and tax revenues, ... with a good faith belief in an aboriginal right to trade tobacco freely with Canada. This ... sovereign.") (footnote omitted); Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British umbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1164-1165 (9th Cir.1979). The ... ...
-
Atty Gen of Canada v. Rj Reynolds Tobacco Holdings
... ... 263, 136 L.Ed.2d 188 (1996); Her Majesty the Queen in Right Of the Province of British umbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting ... ...
-
In re Cinar Corp. Securities Litigation
... ... See Columbia Briargate Co. v. First Nat'l Bank in Dallas, 713 ... See Her Majesty Queen in Right of Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1163 n. 1 (9th Cir.1979). The ... ...
-
The Revenue Rule And The Recognition Of Tax Claims In Cross-Border Cases
...1121 (1775). 39 See Weiss, supra note 5 at 304-05. 40 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 41 Id. at 1164-66. 42 Brenda Mallinak, The Revenue Rule: A Common Law Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century, Duke J. of Int'l and C......
-
Enforcing Foreign Country Judgments in Colorado
...1976); Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361, 31 S.E.2d 818, 827 (1944); Her Majesty, Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 1979); British Midland Airways, Ltd. v. International Travel, Inc., 497 F.2d 869, 871 (9th Cir. 1974); Restatement,§ 98, co......
-
Implementing Strategies for the Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency: the Divergence in Asia-pacific and Lessons for Uncitral
...the inadmissibility of foreign revenue claims. Some of the reasons for the exclusion were articulated in British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 1979). It was suggested that requiring countries to enforce foreign tax claims would require some analysis of the tax claim,......
-
Initial Client Contact
...483. The Uniform Act defines “foreign judgments” to exclude tax or penal judgments. See also Her Majesty, Queen in Right v. Gilbertson , 597 F.2d 1161, 1164-1165 (9th Cir. 1979) (court would not enforce Canadian judgment for back taxes against residents of Oregon). 10. Reciprocity: Under th......