1. Askanase v. United States (In re Guyana Development Corp.), 189 B.R., 393, 396 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1995).Google Scholar

2. 130 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 1997), cert denied sub.nom Pierce v. United States,—U.S.—, 119 S.Ct, 45, 142 L.Ed.2d 35 (1998).Google Scholar

3. United States v. Boots, 80 F.3d 580 (1st Cir.) cert, denied,—U.S.—, 117 S.Ct 263, 136 L.Ed.2d 188 (1996).

4. In re State of Norway's Application (No.2) [1990] 1 A.C. 723.Google Scholar

5. Albrecht, A. R., “The Enforcement of Taxation Under International Law” (1953) 30 B.Y.I.L. 454, 462Google Scholar. See also Smith, Richard E., “The Non-Recognition of Foreign Tax Judgments: International Tax Evasion” (1981) Ill. L.R. 241, 242Google Scholar (arguing that the revenue rule encourages tax fraud by providing an “attractive and expedient means of evading the revenue laws of a foreign nation”).

6. Permanent Trustee Co. (Canberra) Ltd v. Finlayson (1963) 122 C.L.R. 338 (Austl.)Google Scholar

7. United States of America v. Harden (1963) 41 D.L.R, 2d 721 (AIta.).Google Scholar

8. Government of India v. Taylor [1955] 1 All E.R. 292.Google Scholar

9. In idem [1955] 1 All E.R. 292, 302, Lord Somervell quotes Pillet's Traité de Droit International Privé, para. 674, thus: “Les jugements rendus en matière criminelle ne sont pas les seuls qui soient soumis à la loi de la territorialité absolue. Les jugements rendus en matière fiscale ne sont eux non plus susceptibles d'aucune exécution à l'étranger, et l'on n'a me˚ring;me jamais songé à la possibilité de faire exécuter sur le territoire de l'un d'eux une sentence relative aux droits fiscaux de l'état qui auriat été rendue sur le territoire d'un autre.”

10. Peter Buchanan Ltd v. McVey [1954] I.R. 89.Google Scholar

11. In re Tucker [1988] F.L.R. 323.Google Scholar

12. In re Tucker [1988] F.L.R. 378.Google Scholar

13. Metal Industries (Salvage) Ltd v. Owners of the S. T. “Harle” 1962 S.L.T. 114.Google Scholar

14. Comm'r of Taxes v. McFarland 1965(1) S.A. 470 (Witwatersrand Local Div.).

15. E.g. HM the Queen ex rel British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979) (applying Oregon law); United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 13, 23–24 (2d Cir. 1963), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 325 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1964), rev'd on other grounds, 379 U.S. 378 (1965) (following federal common law).

16. Mann, F. A., “Prerogative Rights of Foreign States and the Conflict of Laws” (1954) 40 Grotius Soc. Transactions 25, 28 n.8 (citing decisions from courts in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Italy and Sweden).Google Scholar

17. The EC Convention of 27 Sept. 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, by virtue of Art.1(1), does not extend to “revenue, customs, or administrative matters”. Similarly, the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act excludes judgments for taxes. See e.g. Fla. Stat. ch.55.602(2) (1997); N. Y. Mckinney's C.P.L.R. §5301(b) (1996). At the time of writing, 30 of the United States have adopted the UFMJRA.

18. Japan requires reciprocity: Minsoho 200(4). Common law countries do not traditionally impose a requirement of reciprocity for the enforcement of foreign judgments. E.g. Adams v. Cape Industries [1990] 1 Ch. 433, 552. Section 4(b) of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act does, however, contain such a requirement.

19. Boucher v. Lawson (1734) 95 Eng. Rep. 53, 55–56 (KB). For a modem example of the same problem and the same result, see Holmes v. Mangel, 72 B.R. 516 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1987).Google Scholar

20. (1775) 98 Eng. Rep. 1120, 1121 (KB).Google Scholar

21. See also Clugas v. Penaluna (1791) 100 Eng. Rep. 1122 (KB)Google Scholar; Bernard v. Reed (1794) 170 Eng. Rep. 290 (KB).Google Scholar

22. Loc. cit. supra n.20.

23. (1797) 99 Eng. Rep. 164 (KB).Google Scholar

24. Albrecht, , op. cit. supra n.5, at p.461. Even in its early years, however, the rule was not adhered to absolutely. See e.g. King of Spain v. Oliver, 14 F.Cas. 572 (D. Pa. 1816) (determining liability for Spanish import duties)Google Scholar; Alves v. Hodgson (1797) 7 Term. Rep. 241 (refusing to permit recovery on a foreign note on which foreign documentary stamp tax had not been paid).Google Scholar

25. See authorities cited supra, nn.3–16, See also, e.g., Brokaw v. Seatrain UK Ltd [1971] 2 Q.B. 476Google Scholar; A.-G. for Canada v. William Schulze &. Co. 1901 S.L.T. 4Google Scholar; Moore v. Mitchell, 281 U.S. 18 (1929).Google Scholar

26. A few limited treaty exceptions also exist. E.g. Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, 18 Dec. 1992, US-Netherlands, Art.31, 32 I.L.M. 457 (undertaking assistance in the collection of tax in the assisting State, but prohibiting collection against citizens, corporations, or other entities of the assisting State unless, according to mutual agreement, an undeserved treaty benefit was conferred allowing it to escape tax).

27. 139 N.Y.S. 713 (App. Div.), aff'd 106 N.E. 1034 (1930).Google Scholar

28. 320 N.Y.S. 2d 540 (App. Div. 1961).Google Scholar

29. See also Re Lord Cable [1976] 3 All E.R. 417, 433–434 (denying injunction prohibiting estate trustees from transmitting probate funds from the UK to India where failure so to transmit would render the trustees personally liable for unpaid Indian estate duty and would violate Indian exchange control legislation).Google Scholar

30. Re Sefel Geophysical Ltd (1988) 54 D.L.R. (4th) 117 (Alta. QB).Google Scholar

31. Ayres v. Evans (1981) A.L.R. 129.Google Scholar

32. Priestley v. Clegg (1985)(3) 950 (Transvaal Provincial Division).Google Scholar

33. In re Tucker [1988] F.L.R. 323.Google Scholar

34. Bullen v. Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, 553 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). The underlying judgment is reviewed in Regina v. Garner [1986] 1 W.L.R. 73.Google Scholar

35. Bullen, idem, p.1345.

36. Philip Baker, “The Transnational Enforcement of Tax Liabilities” (1993) British Tax Rev. 313, 315Google Scholar; Avery-Jones, John F., “Enforcement of Foreign Revenue Debts” (1990) British Tax Rev. 109.Google Scholar

37. Fla. Stat, ch.55.602(2) (1997). The case may have been overruled. The UFMJRA excludes judgments for taxes; however, under the logk of Bullen, a judgment for fraudulently diverting trust fund taxes may not be a judgment for taxes.Google Scholar

38. 18 U.S.C. §1343 provides: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or article to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”

39. In neither case were the defendants indicted for smuggling. US law does penalise the smuggling of goods into a foreign country, but only if the foreign country has a reciprocal law. 18 U.S.C. §546. The Boots court expressed no opinion as to whether Canada has such a law. 80 F.3d 588, n.13.

40. The defendants also urged three other grounds for error: (1) that their alleged violation of a State bribery law by bribing a Native American law enforcement officer could not provide the basis for finding a violation of the Travel Act, U.S.C § 1952; (2) that, due to the interference of federal statutes with tribal sovereignty, they could not be convicted of a wire fraud in conspiring to deprive another tribe of the services of its police chief; and (3) that the court improperly refused to instruct the jury on their good faith belief in an aboriginal right to free international trade of their sacred product, idem, pp.584–585.

41. idem, p.586.

42. idem, p.587 n.12.

43. idem, p.587.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Supra n.2, at p.551 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

49. Idem, p.552. The court noted that using wires to execute a scheme to defraud a foreign government is generally cognisable under §1343, relying on United States v. Gilboe, 684 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1982) (upholding conviction of defendant who devised to defraud People's Republic of China of money for grain shipments).

50. Trapilo, idem, p.551. This reading is consistent with the Supreme Court's increasing emphasis on plain-reading interpretation. See e.g. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241–242 (1993). Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 481 U.S. 454 (1987). This reading is also supported by a reading of the mail fraud statute which declines to relieve a defendant on federalism grounds from criminal liability for defrauding a State: “the focus of the statute is on misuse of the Postal Service, and Congress clearly has authority to regulate such misuse of the mails”. United States v. Mirabile, 503 F.2d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1974).

51. Trapilo, idem, p.553.

52. Peter Buchanan, Ltd v. McVey [1954] I.R. 89, 98–100 (rejecting original statement of revenue rule that “no country ever takes notice of the revenue laws of another”). See also Korthinos v. Niarchos, 184 F.2d 716, 719 (4th Cir. 1950) (allowing deduction from judgment of seamen's wage payment for Greek taxes required to be withheld).Google Scholar

53. Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 450 n.11 (1964) (White J, dissenting).

54. In W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics, 493 U.S. 400, 406 (1990), the Court characterised the act of State doctrine as “not some vague doctrine of abstention but a ‘principle of decision binding on federal and state courts alike’”. However, in that case, the Court found no foreign sovereign act and, therefore, found error in the trial court's dismissal of the case merely because it might have embarrassed a foreign government. To the extent, therefore, that the act of State doctrine requires the trial court not to decide the issue of foreign law whilst exercising its jurisdiction, it is a specific and compulsory abstention doctrine.Google Scholar

55. idem, p.409; Sabbatino, supra n.53, at p.421.Google Scholar

56. Sabbatino, idem, p.450 n.11 (White J, dissenting).

57. idem, pp.416, 450 n.11 (White J, dissenting).

58. Grass v. Credito Mexicano), S.A., 797 F.2d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 1986) (refusing to decide validity of Mexican currency regulations); Frazier v. Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, Inc., 125 N.Y.S. 2d 900, 903 (App. Div. 1953) (refusing to question legislation of Peruvian Congress); sWells Fargo & Co. v. Tribolet, 50 P.2d 878, 881 (Ariz. 1935) (refusing to decide validity of legislation of Sonoma State).Google Scholar

59. See text at infra nn.73–76.

60. United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1341 (5th Cir. 1981)Google Scholar. See also United States v. Gafyczk, 847 F.2d 685, 689–690 (11 th Cir. 1988) (reversing conviction under 18 U.S.C. §121 for attempting to defraud US Customs by using false bills of lading and shippers' export declarations where evidence showed only avoidance of obligations to Italy and failed to show any “pecuniary or property loss to the United States”).Google Scholar

61. Arkansas Corp. Comm'n v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 132, 142 (1941).Google Scholar

62. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364–365 (1970). At least one precedent supports the view that, the act of State doctrine not withstanding, a US court may enquire into the validity of a foreign public law the violation of which is an element of a crime under US law. United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275 (4th Cir. 1993). The same may apply to the revenue rule.Google Scholar

63. Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 n.6 (1987).Google Scholar

64. United States v. Miller, 545 F.2d 1204, 1216 n.17 (9th Cir. 1976), cert.denied, 430 U.S. 930 (1977)Google Scholar; United States v. Regan, 713 Supp. 629 (S.D.N.Y 1989).Google Scholar

65. United States v. Brewer, 528 F.2d 492 (4th Cir. 1975)Google Scholar (mailing cigarettes from North Carolina to mail-order customers in Florida without registering with Florida Department of Revenue and without making any representations as to tax was mail fraud); United States v. Mirabile, 503 F.2d 1065 (8th Cir. 1974) (mailing false sales and use tax returns to State of Missouri was mail fraud)Google Scholar; United States v. Flaxman, 495 F.2d 347 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 419 U.S. 1031 (1974) (mailing false occupational tax returns to the State of Illinois constituted mail fraud).Google Scholar

66. Supra n.49.

67. Goss, supra n.60, at p.1341.Google Scholar

68. Trapilo, supra n.2, at p.552; United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71, 94 (2d Cir. 1991).Google Scholar

69. Lindsey v. United States, 332 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1964); Huff v. United States, 301 F.2d 760 (5th Cir), cert, denied, 371 U.S. 922 (1962).Google Scholar

70. Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 390 (1960)Google Scholar; United States v. Brewer, 528 F.2d 492, 496 (4th Cir. 1975).Google Scholar

71. United States v. Ader, 248 F.13 (7th Cir. 1922)Google Scholar, cert, denied, 260 U.S. 746 (1923).Google Scholar

72. United States v. Jones, 380 F. Supp. 343 (D.N.J. 1974).Google Scholar

73. United States v. Keane, 522 F.2d 534, 545 (7th Cir. 1975) (upholding mail fraud conviction against city alderman for defrauding city and citizens of Chicago by breach of public duty through use of inside information and undisclosed conflict of interest), quoting Blachy v. United States, 380 F.2d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted).Google Scholar

74. Gilboe, supra n.49.

75. United States v. Dorfman, 335 F.Supp. 675, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) (using wires to arrange a kickback for using a position as fiduciary of a pension plan trust by arranging a loan from a pension fund which would not be disclosed to the trust was sufficient to infringe the wire fraud statute).

76. United States v. DiFiore, 720 F.2d 757, 766 (2d Cir. 1983)Google Scholar(Winters J, concurring and dissenting), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1241 (1984).Google Scholar