1

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF THE 

PROTOCOL SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON JANUARY 14, 2013 AMENDING 

THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF 

DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH 

RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME AND THE PROTOCOL, WHICH FORMS AN 

INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONVENTION, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

This is a Technical Explanation of the Protocol signed at Washington on January 

24, 2013, and the related Exchange of Notes (hereinafter the “Protocol” and “Exchange 

of Notes” respectively), amending the Convention between the Government of the United 

States of America and the Government of Japan for the avoidance of double taxation and 

the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, signed at Washington on

November 6, 2003 (hereinafter the “existing Convention”), the Protocol, which forms an 

integral part of the existing Convention, signed at Washington on November 6, 2003 

(hereinafter the “Protocol of 2003”), and the agreement effectuated by an Exchange of 

Notes on November 6, 2003 (hereinafter the “Notes of 2003). The existing Convention, 

as amended by the Protocol of 2003 and the Protocol, is referred to as “the Convention.” 

Negotiations took into account the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s current tax 

treaty policy and the Treasury Department’s Model Income Tax Convention, published 

on November 15, 2006 (the “U.S. Model”). Negotiations also took into account the 

Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, published by the Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (the “OECD Model”), and recent tax treaties 

concluded by both countries.

This Technical Explanation is an official guide to the Protocol and Exchange of 

Notes. It explains policies behind particular provisions, as well as understandings 

reached during the negotiations with respect to the interpretation and application of the 

Protocol and the Exchange of Notes.

References to the existing Convention are intended to put various provisions of 

the Protocol into context. The Technical Explanation does not, however, provide a 

complete comparison between the provisions of the existing Convention and the 

amendments made by the Protocol and Exchange of Notes. The Technical Explanation is 

not intended to provide a complete guide to the existing Convention as amended by the 

Protocol and Exchange of Notes. To the extent that the existing Convention has not been 

amended by the Protocol and Exchange of Notes, the technical explanation of the existing 

Convention and the Protocol of 2003 remains the official explanation. References in this 

Technical Explanation to “he” or “his” should be read to mean “he or she” or “his or 

her.” References to the “Code” are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
2

Article I

Article I of the Protocol revises paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the existing 

Convention by deleting references to Article 20 of the existing Convention, which has 

been deleted by Article VII of the Protocol. 

Article II

Article II of the Protocol replaces paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the existing 

Convention. Revised paragraph 4 provides that if by reason of paragraph 1, a person 

other than an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, such dual resident may 

not claim any benefit accorded to residents of a Contracting State by the Convention. 

The person may, however, claim any benefits that are not limited to residents, such as 

those provided by paragraph 1 of Article 24. Thus, for example, pursuant to Article 24, a 

State cannot impose discriminatory taxation on a dual resident company.

Regardless of the outcome under this paragraph, a dual resident company also 

may be treated as a resident of a Contracting State for purposes other than that of 

obtaining benefits under the Convention. For example, if a dual resident company pays a 

dividend to a resident of Japan, the U.S. paying agent would withhold on that dividend at 

the appropriate treaty rate (assuming the payee is otherwise entitled to treaty benefits) 

because reduced withholding is a benefit enjoyed by the resident of Japan, not by the dual 

resident company. The dual resident company that paid the dividend would, for this 

purpose, be treated as a resident of the United States under the Convention. In addition, 

information relating to dual resident companies can be exchanged under the Convention 

because, by its terms, Article 26 is not limited to residents of the Contracting States.

Article III

Article III of the Protocol amends Article 10 of the existing Convention. Article 

10 sets forth rules for taxation of cross-border dividend payments. 

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 1 makes two amendments to subparagraph 3(a) of Article 10 of the 

existing Convention, which sets forth the ownership and holding period requirements that 

companies must satisfy in order to qualify for an exemption from withholding on certain 

dividends. Pursuant to the existing Convention, in order to qualify for the exemption 

from dividend withholding, the company receiving the dividend is required to own, 

directly or indirectly through one or more residents of either Contracting State, more than 

50 percent of the voting stock of the company paying the dividends for the period of 

twelve months ending on the date on which entitlement to the dividend is determined 

(additional requirements also apply, such as beneficial ownership and qualification of 

certain limitation on benefits provisions). Paragraph 1 replaces “more than 50 percent” 

with “at least 50 percent.” Accordingly, a company receiving a dividend and owning 
3

directly or indirectly through residents of either Contracting State, 50 percent or more of 

the company paying the dividend would become eligible for the exemption from 

withholding at source, assuming that all other requirements have been satisfied.

In addition to modifying the required ownership threshold for entitlement to the 

exemption from dividend withholding, paragraph 1 of Article III also shortens the 

twelve-month holding period requirement to six months. 

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 of Article III amends paragraph 9 of Article 10 of the existing 

Convention. The amendments delete references to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the 

existing Convention to conform to changes to that Article made in Article V of the 

Protocol. 

Article IV

Article IV of the Protocol replaces Article 11 of the existing Convention. Article 

11 sets forth rules for taxation of cross-border interest payments. 

Paragraph 1 of New Article 11

Paragraph 1 of new Article 11 generally grants to the residence State the 

exclusive right to tax interest beneficially owned by its residents and arising in the other 

Contracting State. 

The term “beneficial owner” is not defined in the Convention, and is, therefore, 

defined under the domestic law of the source State. The beneficial owner of the interest 

for purposes of Article 11 is the person to which the income is attributable under the laws 

of the source State. Thus, if interest arising in a Contracting State is received by a 

nominee or agent that is a resident of the other State on behalf of a person that is not a 

resident of that other State, the interest is not entitled to the benefits of Article 11. 

However, interest received by a nominee on behalf of a resident of that other State would 

be entitled to benefits. These limitations are confirmed by paragraph 9 of the OECD 

Commentary to Article 11.

Special rules apply to interest derived through fiscally transparent entities for 

purposes of determining the beneficial owner of the interest. In such cases, residence 

State principles shall be used to determine who derives the interest, to assure that the 

interest for which the source State grants benefits of the Convention will be taken into 

account for tax purposes by a resident of the residence State. 

For example, assume that FCo, a company that is a resident of Japan, owns a 50 

percent interest in FP, a partnership that is organized in Japan. FP receives interest 

arising in the United States. Japan views FP as fiscally transparent under its domestic 

law, and taxes FCo currently on its distributive share of the income of FP and determines 
4

the character and source of the income received through FP in the hands of FCo as if such 

income were realized directly by FCo. In this case, FCo is treated as deriving 50 percent 

of the interest received by FP that arises in the United States under paragraph 6 of Article

4 of the existing Convention. The same result would be reached even if the tax laws of 

the United States would treat FP differently (e.g., if FP were not treated as fiscally 

transparent in the United States), or if FP were organized in a third state, as long as FP 

were still treated as fiscally transparent under the laws of Japan.

While residence State principles control who is treated as deriving the interest, 

source State principles of beneficial ownership apply to determine whether the person 

who derives the interest, or another resident of the other Contracting State, is the 

beneficial owner of the interest. If the person who derives the interest under paragraph 6 

of Article 4 of the existing Convention would not be treated as a nominee, agent, 

custodian, conduit, etc. under the source State’s principles for determining beneficial 

ownership, that person will be treated as the beneficial owner of the interest for purposes 

of the Convention. In the example above, FCo is required to satisfy the beneficial 

ownership principles of the United States with respect to the interest it derives. If under 

the beneficial ownership principles of the United States, FCo is found not to be the 

beneficial owner of the interest, FCo will not be entitled to the benefits of Article 11 with 

respect to such interest. If FCo is found to be a nominee, agent, custodian, or conduit for 

a person who is a resident of the other Contracting State, that person may be entitled to 

benefits with respect to the interest.

Paragraph 2 of New Article 11

Paragraph 2 of new Article 11 provides anti-abuse exceptions to the sourcecountry exemption in paragraph 1 for two classes of interest payments.

The first class of interest dealt with in subparagraph 2(a) is so-called “contingent 

interest.” Such interest is defined in subparagraph 2(a) as any interest arising in a 

Contracting State that is determined by reference to the receipts, sales, income, profits or 

other cash flow of the debtor or a related person, to any change in the value of any 

property of the debtor or a related person or to any dividend, partnership distribution or 

similar payment made by the debtor or a related person, or any other interest similar to 

such interest arising in a Contracting State. Any such interest may be taxed in that 

Contracting State according to the laws of that State. If the beneficial owner is a resident 

of the other Contracting State, however, the gross amount of the interest may be taxed at 

a rate not exceeding 10 percent. With respect to interest arising in the United States, 

subparagraph 2(a) refers to contingent interest of a type that does not qualify as portfolio 

interest under U.S. domestic law as defined in Code section 871(h)(4). The exceptions of 

section 871(h)(4)(c) will be applicable.

The second class of interest is dealt with in subparagraph 2(b). This exception is 

consistent with the policy of Code sections 860E(e) and 860G(b) that excess inclusions 

with respect to a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) should bear full U.S. 

tax in all cases. Without a full tax at source, foreign purchasers of residual interests 
5

would have a competitive advantage over U.S. purchasers at the time these interests are 

initially offered. Also, absent this rule, the U.S. fisc would suffer a revenue loss with 

respect to mortgages held in a REMIC because of opportunities for tax avoidance created 

by differences in the timing of taxable and economic income produced by these interests.

Subparagraph 2(b) of new Article 11 is analogous to subparagraph 2(c) of the 

U.S. Model, although the provision in new Article 11 is drafted to apply bilaterally. 

Thus, for example, paragraph 2(b) of new Article 11 does not refer to the long-term 

Federal rate used to determine the amount of an excess inclusion, but rather to “the return 

on comparable debt instruments as specified by the domestic law of that Contracting 

State.” Nevertheless, for U.S. tax purposes, the withholding tax imposed “to the extent 

that the amount of interest paid exceeds the return on comparable debt instruments as 

specified by the domestic law of that Contracting State” is the withholding tax that would 

be imposed upon an excess inclusion with respect to a residual interest in a REMIC under 

section 860G(b). 

Paragraph 3 of New Article 11

Paragraph 3 of new Article 11 provides a source rule that is identical to the 

interest source rule in paragraph 7 of the existing Convention. Interest generally is 

considered to arise in a Contracting State when paid by a resident of that Contracting 

State. Special rules are provided where the interest is borne by a permanent 

establishment of the person paying the interest. In such a case, if the permanent 

establishment is situated in a Contracting State, then the interest shall be deemed to arise 

in that Contracting State; and if the permanent establishment is situated in a state other 

than one of the Contracting States, then the interest shall not be deemed to arise in either 

Contracting State. While interest borne by a permanent establishment that is situated in a 

state other than one of the Contracting States thus will not be eligible for the benefits of 

the Convention, it may be eligible for the benefits of the tax treaty, if any, between the 

state in which the permanent establishment is situated and the Contracting State of which 

the beneficial owner of the interest is a resident. 

For purposes of paragraph 3 of new Article 11, interest is considered to be borne 

by a permanent establishment if it is allocable to the taxable income of that permanent 

establishment. If the actual amount of interest on the books of a U.S. branch of a resident 

of Japan exceeds the amount of interest allocated to the branch under Treas. Reg. section 

1.882-5, the amount of such excess will not be considered U.S. source interest for 

purposes of this Article.

Paragraph 4 of New Article 11

Paragraph 4 of new Article 11 provides a definition of the term “interest” for 

purposes of the Article that is identical to that provided in paragraph 5 of Article 11 of 

the existing Convention. The term “interest” as used in Article 11 is defined in paragraph 

4 to include, inter alia, income from debt claims of every kind, whether or not secured by 

a mortgage and whether or not carrying a right to participate in the debtor's profits. The 
6

term does not, however, include amounts that are treated as dividends under Article 10. 

The term interest also includes amounts subject to the same tax treatment as 

income from money lent under the law of the State in which the income arises. Thus, for 

purposes of the Convention, amounts that the United States will treat as interest include 

(i) the difference between the issue price and the stated redemption price at maturity of a 

debt instrument (i.e., original issue discount (“OID”)), which may be wholly or partially 

realized on the disposition of a debt instrument (section 1273), (ii) amounts that are 

imputed interest on a deferred sales contract (section 483), (iii) amounts treated as 

interest or OID under the stripped bond rules (section 1286), (iv) amounts treated as OID

under the below-market interest rate rules (section 7872), (v) a partner's distributive share 

of a partnership's interest income (section 702), (vi) the interest portion of periodic 

payments made under a "finance lease" or similar contractual arrangement that in 

substance is a borrowing by the nominal lessee to finance the acquisition of property, 

(vii) amounts included in the income of a holder of a residual interest in a REMIC 

(section 860E), because these amounts generally are subject to the same taxation 

treatment as interest under U.S. tax law, and (viii) interest with respect to notional 

principal contracts that are recharacterized as loans because of a “substantial non-periodic 

payment.”

Paragraph 5 of New Article 11

Paragraph 5 of new Article 11 is identical in substance to paragraph 6 of Article 

11 of the existing Convention. Paragraph 5 of new Article 11 provides an exception to 

paragraphs 1 and 2 of new Article 11 where the beneficial owner of the interest carries on 

business through a permanent establishment in the Contracting State in which the interest 

arises and the interest is attributable to that permanent establishment. In such cases, the 

applicable provisions of Article 7 of the existing Convention will apply. 

The provisions of paragraph 4 of the Protocol of 2003 apply to income described 

in this paragraph. For example, interest income that is attributable to a permanent 

establishment and that accrues during the existence of the permanent establishment, but is 

received after the permanent establishment no longer exists, remains taxable under the 

provisions of Article 7 of the existing Convention, and not under this Article.

Paragraph 6 of New Article 11

Paragraph 6 of new Article 11 is identical to paragraph 8 of Article 11 of the 

existing Convention. Paragraph 6 of new Article 11 provides that, in cases involving 

special relationships between persons, Article 11 applies only to that portion of the total

interest payments between those persons that would have been made absent such special 

relationships (i.e., an arm’s-length interest payment). The term “special relationship” is 

not defined in the Convention. In applying this paragraph, the United States considers the 

term to include the relationships described in Article 9 of the existing Convention, which 

in turn correspond to the definition of “control” for purposes of section 482 of the Code. 

This is consistent with paragraph 33 of the Commentary to Article 11 of the OECD 
7

Model. 

Paragraph 6 of new Article 11 also provides that any amount of interest paid in 

excess of the amount that would be been paid absent a special relationship may be 

taxable in the Contracting State in which it arises at a rate not to exceed 5 percent. This 

rule is similar to rules provided in paragraph 4 of Article 12 and paragraph 3 of Article 21 

of the existing Convention, which provide that any amount paid in excess of the amount 

that would have been paid absent a special relationship may be taxable in the Contracting 

State in which they arise at a rate not to exceed 5 percent. 

The Convention’s treatment of such excess amounts is consistent in most 

circumstances with the results under the U.S. Model and U.S. domestic law and practice. 

Absent the specific rule in the Convention, in most cases the United States would treat 

such excess amounts as a dividend or as a contribution to capital, depending on the 

relationship between the parties, and tax such amounts accordingly. Under the 

Convention, a maximum 5 percent withholding tax rate generally applies to dividends 

where the beneficial owner is a company owning directly or indirectly at least 10 percent 

of the voting stock of the company paying the dividends. In Japan, the general practice in 

the context of investment income such as interest, dividends, or other income is to impose 

withholding taxes on the amount in excess of the arm's-length amount at the domestic 

rate. Thus, for example, if a Japanese company makes an interest payment to its nonJapanese parent company, and Japan determines that the amount of the interest payment 

exceeded an arm's-length amount, Japan will deny a deduction for the excess amount and 

treat the excess amount as an interest payment subject to the appropriate withholding rate 

applicable to interest paid by Japanese companies under its domestic law, which is 

generally 20 percent. Under the Convention, such excess amounts instead are subject to a 

maximum 5 percent rate of withholding taxes. 

Paragraph 6 of new Article 11 does not address cases where, owing to a special 

relationship between the payer and the beneficial owner, or between both of them and 

some other person, the amount of the interest is less than an arm’s-length amount. In 

those cases a transaction may be characterized to reflect its substance and interest may be 

imputed consistent with the definition of interest in paragraph 4 of new Article 11. 

Consistent with Article 9 of the existing Convention, the United States would apply 

section 482 or 7872 of the Code to determine the amount of imputed interest in those 

cases.

Paragraph 7 of New Article 11

Paragraph 7 of new Article 11 is identical to paragraph 11 of Article 11 of the 

existing Convention. Paragraph 7 of new Article 11 provides that a resident of a 

Contracting State shall not be considered the beneficial owner of interest in certain 

“back-to-back” loan arrangements. The benefits of Article 11 therefore are not available 

with respect to such interest. This rule is similar to rules dealing with interest, royalties, 

and other income in paragraph 11 of Article 10, paragraph 5 of Article 12, and paragraph 

4 of Article 21 of the existing Convention. These limited “anti-conduit” rules and their 
8

interaction with U.S. domestic law are discussed in the technical explanation of 

paragraph 11 of Article 10 of the existing Convention. 

Paragraph 7 of new Article 11 provides that a resident of a Contracting State shall 

not be considered the beneficial owner of interest in respect of a debt-claim if such debtclaim would not have been established unless a person that is not entitled to the same or 

more favorable treaty benefits and that is not a resident of either Contracting State held 

an equivalent debt-claim against the resident. The operation of this rule can be illustrated 

in the following examples: 

Example 1. A, a U.S. resident, holds a debt-claim against X, a Japanese company, 

that entitles A to interest of 10x each year. B, a resident of a third country that does not 

have a tax treaty with Japan, owns a debt-claim against A that entitles B to interest of 10x 

each year and otherwise has terms that are equivalent to the terms of the debt-claim held 

by A. A would not have established its debt-claim against X if B did not hold a debtclaim against A. X pays interest of 10x to A, which pays interest of 10x to B. Under 

paragraph 11, A will not be considered the beneficial owner of the interest from X, and 

therefore is not entitled to treaty benefits with respect to the interest from X. 

Example 2. The facts are the same as the facts of Example 1, except that, instead 

of owning a debt-claim against A, B holds preferred stock in A that entitles B to 10x each 

year to the extent of A's earnings in that year. A pays dividends of 10x to B. Paragraph 11 

does not apply to deny treaty benefits to A with respect to the interest from X. 

No inference is intended as to the result of Example 2 in cases of interest arising 

in the United States under U.S. domestic anti-abuse rules (e.g., the anti-conduit rules and 

other anti-abuse rules referred to in the Technical Explanation of paragraph 11 of Article 

10 of the existing Convention).

Relation to Other Articles 

Notwithstanding the foregoing limitations on source country taxation of interest, 

the saving clause of subparagraph 4(a) of Article 1 of the existing Convention permits the 

United States to tax its residents and citizens, subject to the special foreign tax credit 

rules of paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the existing Convention, as if the Convention had 

not come into force. 

The benefits of this Article are also subject to the provisions of Article 22 of the 

existing Convention. Thus, if a resident of Japan is the beneficial owner of interest paid 

by a U.S. corporation, the resident must qualify for treaty benefits under at least one of 

the tests of Article 22 in order to receive the benefits of this Article.

Article V

Article V of the Protocol makes amendments to Article 13 of the existing 

Convention. 
9

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 1 of Article V replaces paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the existing 

Convention with a new paragraph 2. This paragraph defines the term "real property 

situated in the other Contracting State." Subparagraph (a) of new paragraph 2 provides 

that the term includes real property referred to in Article 6 (i.e., an interest in the real 

property itself). Subparagraph (b) provides that when “the other Contracting State” 

referenced in paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the existing Convention is Japan, the term 

includes shares or interests in a company, partnership or trust deriving the value of its 

property directly or indirectly principally from real property in Article 6 and situated in 

Japan. Subparagraph (c) provides that when “the other Contracting State” referenced in 

paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the existing Convention is the United States, the term 

includes a "United States real property interest." 

Under section 897(c) of the Code, the term "United States real property interest" 

includes shares in a U.S. corporation that owns sufficient U.S. real property interests to 

satisfy an asset-ratio test on certain testing dates. The term also includes certain foreign 

corporations that have elected to be treated as U.S. corporations for this purpose. See

section 897(i) of the Code. In addition, any distribution made by a U.S. real estate 

investment trust or certain U.S. regulated investment companies is taxable under 

paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the existing Convention (rather than under Article 10 

(Dividends) of the existing Convention) to the extent that it is attributable to gains 

derived from the alienation of U.S. real property interests. See section 897(h) of the 

Code.

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 of Article V replaces paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the existing 

Convention. The only change is to delete references to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the 

existing Convention that are no longer necessary.

Article VI

Article VI of the Protocol restates Article 15 of the existing Convention. The 

restatement was necessary in order to provide an opportunity to correct an error in the 

Japanese language text of the existing Convention.

Paragraph 3 of the Exchange of Notes contains two understandings between the 

Contracting States regarding the interpretation of Article 15 of the Convention. First, it is 

understood that if a resident of a Contracting State does not serve as a member of a board 

of directors of a company, Article 15 of the Convention shall not apply to his 

remuneration, regardless of his title or position. Second, it is understood that where a 

member of the board of directors of a company also has other functions (for example, as 

ordinary employee, advisory, or consultant) with the company, Article 15 of the 

Convention does not apply to remuneration paid to such person on account of such other 
10

functions.

Article VII

Article VII of the Protocol deletes Article 20 of the existing Convention, which 

provides certain benefits for residents of one Contracting State who are temporarily 

present in the other Contracting State for the purpose of teaching or conducting research. 

This change is intended to bring the existing Convention into closer conformity with the 

current tax treaty policies of both the United States and Japan. Paragraph 5 of Article XV 

of the Protocol ensures that individuals who are receiving benefits under Article 20 at the 

time the Protocol enters into force will continue to be entitled to such benefits until such 

time as they would have ceased to be entitled to the benefits if the Protocol had not 

entered into force.

Article VIII

Article VIII of the Protocol modifies subparagraph 5(b)(i) of Article 22 of the 

Convention. This subparagraph defines the term “recognized stock exchange” in the 

case of Japan for purposes of applying Article 22. The amendment in Article VIII 

replaces the reference to “the Securities and Exchange Law” with the legislation’s current 

name, “the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law.”

Article IX

Article IX of the Protocol replaces paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the existing 

Convention in order to bring the Convention into conformity with Japan’s current 

statutory rules for providing relief from double taxation. 

New Subparagraph 1(a) of Article 23

Japan agrees, in new subparagraph 1(a) of Article 23, to allow to its residents, 

subject to its relevant domestic laws, a credit against Japanese tax for U.S. taxes paid in 

accordance with the provisions of the Convention. For this purpose, the U.S. taxes 

covered by new subparagraph 1(b) of Article 23 and paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the 

existing Convention are within the definition of “United States tax.” The amount of 

credit, however, shall not exceed that part of the Japanese tax which is appropriate to that 

income. 

The last sentence of new subparagraph 1(a) provides a re-sourcing rule for income 

covered by this subparagraph. This provision is intended to ensure that a Japanese 

resident can obtain a Japanese foreign tax credit for U.S. taxes paid when the Convention 

assigns to the United States primary taxing rights over an item of income. The last 

sentence provides that, if the Convention allows the United States to tax an item of 

income beneficially owned by a resident of Japan, that income will be deemed to arise 

from sources in the United States for Japanese foreign tax credit purposes. However, 

paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the existing Convention provides special rules regarding 
11

relief of double taxation where a resident of Japan is a U.S. citizen, a former U.S. citizen, 

or a former U.S. long-term resident and is subject to tax in the United States solely by 

reason of the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the existing Convention.

New Subparagraph 1(b) of Article 23

Under new subparagraph 1(b) of Article 23, Japan agrees to exclude from the 

basis upon which the Japanese tax is imposed certain dividends paid by a company which 

is a resident of the United States to a company resident in Japan. This benefit is subject 

to the provisions, other than the provisions with regard to share ownership requirements, 

of Japan’s domestic law regarding the exclusion of dividends from the basis upon which 

the Japanese tax is imposed. In order for subparagraph 1(b) to apply to exclude a 

dividend from Japanese tax, the Japanese company receiving the dividend must have 

owned at least 10 percent of the total shares issued by the U.S. company paying the 

dividend for a period of at least six months immediately before the day when the 

obligation to pay the dividends is confirmed. 

Article X

Article X of the Protocol makes non-substantive amendments to Article 24 of the 

existing Convention in order to conform to changes made to Article 11 dealing with the 

taxation of interest.

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 1 of Article X amends paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the existing 

Convention by deleting the words “paragraph 8 of Article 11” and replacing them with 

the words “paragraph 6 of Article 11”. 

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 of Article X amends paragraph 5 of Article 24 of the existing 

Convention by deleting the words “or paragraph 10 of Article 11”.

Article XI

Article XI of the Protocol adds new paragraphs 5 through 7 to Article 25 of the 

existing Convention, which deals with the mutual agreement procedure. In particular, 

Article XI of the Protocol incorporates into Article 25 rules that provide for mandatory 

binding arbitration to resolve certain cases that the competent authorities of the 

Contracting States have been unable to resolve after negotiating for a reasonable amount 

of time. 

The mandatory binding arbitration provision is an extension of (as opposed to an 

alternative to) the interaction between the competent authorities as provided in the mutual 

agreement procedure. Accordingly, only cases that have first been negotiated by the 

competent authorities pursuant to Article 25 shall be eligible for arbitration. Any case for 
12

which the competent authorities have undertaken negotiation pursuant to either paragraph 

1 or paragraph 3 of Article 25 shall be eligible for arbitration, subject to the provisions of 

subparagraph 6(c) of Article 25.

New Paragraph 5 of Article 25

New paragraph 5 of Article 25 provides that a case shall be resolved through 

mandatory binding arbitration when (i) a person has presented a case to the appropriate 

competent authority under paragraph 1 of Article 24 on the basis that the actions of one 

or both of the Contracting States have resulted for that person in taxation not in 

accordance with the provisions of the Convention, (ii) the competent authorities have 

been unable to reach an agreement to resolve the case, and (iii) the conditions specified in 

this paragraph and in new paragraphs 6 and 7 are satisfied. 

New subparagraph 14(a) of the Protocol of 2003 as amended by Article XIV of 

the Protocol provides that for purposes of applying new paragraph 5 of Article 25, 

taxation shall be considered to have resulted from “the actions of one or both of the 

Contracting States” as soon as tax has been paid, assessed or otherwise determined (for 

example, a notification of correction, determination or deficiency of a tax liability has 

been issued), or in cases where the taxpayer is officially notified by the tax authorities 

that they intend to tax him on a certain element of income (for example, a notice of 

proposed adjustment has been issued).

Paragraph 4 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that the fact that tax collection 

procedures may have been suspended shall not affect a determination that taxation not in 

accordance with the provisions of the Convention has resulted from the actions of one or 

both Contracting States. 

New subparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) of Article 25 set forth two additional conditions 

that must be satisfied before a case may be resolved through arbitration. Subparagraph 

5(a) provides that the presenter of the case to a competent authority must submit a written 

request to that competent authority for a resolution of the case through arbitration. 

Subparagraph 5(b) requires that all concerned persons (as defined in new paragraph 7(a) 

of Article 25) and their authorized representatives or agents agree in writing not to 

disclose to any other person, except other concerned persons, any information received 

during the course of the arbitration proceeding from either Contracting State or from the 

arbitration panel, other than the determination of the panel. New subparagraphs 7(c) and 

7(d) of Article 25 (discussed below) provide that the requirements of subparagraphs 5(a) 

and 5(b) of Article 25 must be satisfied prior to the beginning of the arbitration 

proceeding. 

A confidentiality agreement may be executed by any concerned person that has 

the legal authority to bind any other concerned person on the matter. For example, a 

parent corporation with the legal authority to bind its subsidiary with respect to 

confidentiality may execute a comprehensive confidentiality agreement on its own behalf 

and that of its subsidiary.
13

New Paragraph 6 of Article 25

New paragraph 6 of Article 25 sets forth parameters according to which a case 

shall not be submitted to arbitration. Under subparagraph 6(a), an unresolved case shall 

not be submitted to arbitration if a decision on such case has already been rendered by a 

court or administrative tribunal of either Contracting State. Under subparagraph 6(b), an 

unresolved case shall not be submitted to arbitration if the competent authorities have 

mutually agreed before the date on which arbitration proceedings would otherwise have 

begun that the case is not suitable for determination by arbitration. In such cases, the 

competent authorities must notify the presenter of the case of such mutual agreement no 

later than two years after the case’s commencement date (as defined in new subparagraph 

7(b), described below). Subparagraph 6(c) provides that arbitration shall not be available 

for cases that are before the competent authorities only by virtue of the final sentence of 

paragraph 3 of Article 25, which provides that the competent authorities “may also 

consult together for the elimination of double taxation in cases not provided for in the 

Convention.” 

New Paragraph 7 of Article 25

New paragraph 7 of Article 25 sets forth additional rules and definitions to be 

used in applying the arbitration provisions. Subparagraph 7(a) defines the term 

“concerned person” as the person that brought the case to competent authority for 

consideration under Article 25 and all other persons, if any, whose tax liability to either 

Contracting State may be directly affected by a mutual agreement arising from that 

consideration. For example, a concerned person would include a U.S. corporation that 

brings a transfer pricing case with respect to a transaction entered into with its subsidiary 

in Japan for resolution to the U.S. competent authority, as well as the subsidiary, which 

may seek a correlative adjustment as a result of the resolution of the case.

Subparagraph 7(b) defines the term “commencement date” as the earliest date on 

which the information necessary to undertake substantive consideration for a mutual 

agreement has been received by the competent authorities of both Contracting States. 

The competent authority of the United States will be considered to have received the 

information necessary to undertake substantive consideration for a mutual agreement on 

the date that it has received the information that must be submitted pursuant to Rev Proc. 

2006-54, 2006-2 C.B. 1035, § 4.05 (or any applicable successor procedures). The 

competent authority of Japan will be considered to have received the information 

necessary to undertake substantive consideration for a mutual agreement on the date it 

has received the information that must be submitted pursuant to its published procedures 

for requesting competent authority assistance (or any applicable successor procedures). 

The information shall not be considered received until both competent authorities have 

received copies of all materials submitted to either Contracting State by the concerned 

person(s) in connection with the mutual agreement procedure.

Subparagraph 7(c) provides that, other than for cases described in subparagraph 
14

7(d), an arbitration proceeding shall begin on the later of two dates: (i) two years from 

the commencement date of the case (unless both competent authorities have previously 

agreed to a different date and have notified the presenter of the case of such agreement), 

and (ii) the earliest date upon which the requirements of subparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) 

have been satisfied (i.e., the presenter of the case has submitted a written request for 

resolution of the case through arbitration, and all concerned persons and their authorized 

representatives or agents have entered into a confidentiality agreement and the 

agreements have been received by both competent authorities). Clause (i) of this 

subparagraph permits the competent authorities to mutually agree to a different 

commencement date. This could be the case, for instance, if the negotiation of a case 

between the competent authorities were nearing completion and could be expected to be 

resolved in an additional short period of time, and the competent authorities mutually 

agreed that, if given additional time, they could resolve the case, thus avoiding the need 

for an arbitration proceeding. As another example, if a large number of cases would 

otherwise have the same commencement date, clause (i) would allow the competent 

authorities to agree to different commencement dates (including accelerating a 

commencement date) to avoid having multiple arbitration proceedings take place at the 

same time. Clause (i) requires the competent authorities to notify the presenter of the 

case of any such agreements to a different commencement date. 

Subparagraph 7(d) governs the start date of arbitration with respect to a case that 

is the subject of a request for an advanced pricing arrangement, the terms of which the 

competent authorities have not been able to agree. In such cases, an arbitration 

proceeding shall begin on the later of two dates: i) six months after an official notification 

has been issued by the tax authority of either Contracting State of a correction of, or an 

intent to adjust, the pricing of a transaction or transfer covered by a request for an 

advance pricing arrangement regarding a concerned person, unless the competent 

authorities of both Contracting States have agreed to a different date and notified the 

presenter of the case of such agreement; and (ii) the earliest date upon which the 

requirements of subparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) are satisfied (i.e., the presenter of the case 

has submitted a written request for resolution of the case through arbitration, and all 

concerned persons and their authorized representatives or agents have entered into a 

confidentiality agreement and the agreements have been received by both competent 

authorities). However, subparagraph 7(d) specifies that in no event shall the arbitration 

proceeding begin any earlier than two years after the date on which the information 

necessary to undertake substantive consideration for a mutual agreement on the advance 

pricing arrangement has been received by the competent authorities of both Contracting 

States.

Subparagraph 7(e) addresses implementation of the determination of the 

arbitration panel. As is the case with any resolution reached pursuant to the mutual 

agreement procedure, the presenter of the case is not required to accept the resolution. 

Subparagraph 7(e) provides that if the presenter of the case accepts the determination of 

the arbitration panel, such determination shall constitute a resolution by mutual 

agreement under Article 25 of the entire case and thus shall be binding on the Contracting 

States. If timely accepted by the presenter of the case, the determination of the 
15

arbitration panel shall be implemented even if such implementation otherwise would be 

barred by the statute of limitations or by some other procedural limitation. Subparagraph 

7(e), however, does not prevent the application of domestic-law procedural limitations 

that give effect to the agreement (e.g., a domestic law requirement that the taxpayer file a 

return reflecting the agreement within one year of the date of the agreement). 

Subparagraph 7(f) provides that for purposes of an arbitration proceeding under 

new paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 25, the members of the arbitration panel and their 

staff shall be considered “persons or authorities” to whom information may be disclosed 

under Article 26 of the Convention. (See paragraph 2 of new Article 26.)

Subparagraph 7(g) sets forth the confidentiality obligations of the competent 

authorities regarding an arbitration proceeding. Subparagraph 7(g) provides that no 

information relating to an arbitration proceeding (including the arbitration panel's 

determination) may be disclosed by the competent authorities, except as permitted by this 

Convention and the domestic laws of the Contracting States. In addition, all material 

prepared in the course of, or relating to, an arbitration proceeding shall be considered to 

be information exchanged between the Contracting States pursuant to Article 26. 

Subparagraph 7(h) provides that the competent authorities shall ensure that 

members of the arbitration panel and their staff agree in written statements not to disclose 

any information relating to an arbitration proceeding (including the arbitration panel’s 

determination), and to abide by and be subject to the confidentiality and nondisclosure 

provisions of Article 26 and the applicable domestic laws of the Contracting States. In 

the event those provisions conflict, the most restrictive condition shall apply. These 

statements from the members of the arbitration panel shall also include acceptance of 

their appointment to the arbitration panel. The final sentence of subparagraph 7(h) makes 

clear that notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph 7(h), the members of the 

arbitration panel or their staff shall disclose the determination of the arbitration panel to 

the competent authorities of both Contracting States.

Subparagraph 7(i) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of items related to the time 

periods and procedures related to conducting an arbitration proceeding that the competent 

authorities of the Contracting States must agree to in order to ensure the effective and 

timely implementation of the provisions of new paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 25. Such 

agreement must be consistent with the provisions of the Convention, and shall take the 

form of published guidance before the date on which the first arbitration proceeding 

commences. Subparagraph 7(i) lists the following items for which the competent 

authorities shall agree on time frames and procedures: 

i) notifying the presenter of the case of any agreements pursuant to 

subparagraph 7(c)(i) or 7(d)(i) to modify the date on which an arbitration 

proceeding could begin;

ii) the appropriate application of arbitration in the context of an advanced 

pricing arrangement, including rules concerning the date on which an arbitration 
16

proceeding shall begin for such cases;

iii) obtaining the statements of each concerned person, authorized 

representative or agent, and member of the arbitration panel (including their staff)

as required in subparagraphs 5(b) and 7(h), in which each such person agrees not 

to disclose to any other person any information received during the course of the 

arbitration proceeding from the competent authority of either Contracting State or 

the arbitration panel, other than disclosure of the determination of such panel to 

the competent authorities of both Contracting States;

iv) the appointment of the members of the arbitration panel;

v) the submission of proposed resolutions, position papers, and reply 

submissions by the competent authorities to the arbitration panel;

vi) the submission by the presenter of the case of a paper setting forth the 

presenter’s views and analysis of the case for consideration by the arbitration 

panel;

vii) the delivery by the arbitration panel of its determination to the competent 

authorities; 

viii) the acceptance or rejection by the presenter of the case of the 

determination of the arbitration panel; and

ix) the adoption by the arbitration panel of any additional procedures 

necessary for the conduct of its business.

Subparagraph 7(i) authorizes the competent authorities to agree in writing to such 

other rules and procedures as may be necessary for the effective and timely 

implementation of the provisions of new paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. Consistent with this 

authority, the competent authorities may also agree on rules necessary to implement the 

provisions of new paragraph 14 of the Protocol of 2003 as amended by Article XIV of the 

Protocol (discussed below).

For the effective date for new paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of Article 25, see paragraph 

3 of Article XV of the Protocol (discussed below).

Article XII

Article XII of the Protocol replaces Article 26 of the existing Convention. This 

Article provides for the exchange of information between the competent authorities of the 

Contracting States. While mutual agreement procedures are addressed in Article 25, 

exchanges of information for purposes of the mutual agreement procedures are governed 

by new Article 26.
17

Paragraph 1 of New Article 26

The obligation to obtain and provide information to the other Contracting State is 

set out in paragraph 1. The information to be exchanged is that which is foreseeably 

relevant for carrying out the provisions of the Convention or the domestic laws of either

Contracting State concerning taxes of every kind applied at the national level. This 

language incorporates the standard of the OECD Model. The Contracting States intend 

for the phrase “is foreseeably relevant” to be interpreted to permit the exchange of 

information that “may be relevant” for purposes of section 7602 of the Code, which 

authorizes the IRS to examine “any books, papers, records, or other data which may be

relevant or material.” (Emphasis added.). In United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 

U.S. 805, 814 (1984), the Supreme Court stated that the language “may be” reflects 

Congress’s express intention to allow the IRS to obtain “items of even potential

relevance to an ongoing investigation, without reference to its admissibility.” (Emphasis 

in original.) However, the language “may be” would not support a request in which a 

Contracting State (the requesting State) simply asked for information regarding all bank 

accounts maintained by residents of the requesting State in the other Contracting State

(the requested State). Thus, the language of paragraph 1 is intended to provide for 

exchange of information in tax matters to the widest extent possible, while clarifying that 

Contracting States are not at liberty to engage in “fishing expeditions” or otherwise to 

request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer. 

Consistent with the OECD Model, a request for information does not constitute a 

“fishing expedition” solely because it does not provide the name or address (or both) of 

the taxpayer under examination or investigation. In cases where the requesting State does 

not provide the name or address (or both) of the taxpayer under examination or 

investigation, the requesting State must provide other information sufficient to identify 

the taxpayer. Similarly, paragraph 1 does not necessarily require the request to include 

the name or address of the person believed to be in possession of the information.

The standard of “foreseeable relevance” can be met in cases dealing with either

one taxpayer (whether identified by name or otherwise) or several taxpayers (whether 

identified by name or otherwise). Where a Contracting State undertakes an investigation 

into an ascertainable group or category of persons in accordance with its laws, any 

request related to the investigation will typically serve the objective of carrying out the 

domestic tax laws of the requesting State and thus will comply with the requirements of 

paragraph 1, provided it meets the standard of “foreseeable relevance.” In such cases, the 

requesting State should provide, supported by a clear factual basis, a detailed description 

of the group or category of persons and of the specific facts and circumstances that have 

led to the request, as well as an explanation of the applicable law and why there is reason 

to believe that the taxpayers in the group or category of persons for whom information is 

requested have been non-compliant with that law supported by a clear factual basis. The 

requesting State should further show that the requested information would assist in 

determining compliance by the taxpayers in the group or category of persons. 

Exchange of information with respect to each State’s domestic law is authorized 
18

to the extent that taxation under domestic law is not contrary to the Convention. Thus, for 

example, information may be exchanged even if the transaction to which the information 

relates is a purely domestic transaction in the requesting State and, therefore, the 

exchange is not made to carry out the provisions of the Convention. An example of such 

a case is provided in the subparagraph 8(b) of the OECD Commentary to Article 26: A 

company resident in one Contracting State and a company resident in the other 

Contracting State transact business between themselves through a third-country resident 

company. Neither Contracting State has a treaty with the third state. To enforce their 

internal laws with respect to transactions of their residents with the third-country 

company (because there is no relevant treaty in force), the Contracting States may 

exchange information regarding the prices that their residents paid in their transactions 

with the third-country resident. 

The information that may be exchanged relates to information as is foreseeably 

relevant for carrying out the provisions of the Convention or the assessment or collection 

of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in 

relation to, the taxes covered by the Convention. Thus, the competent authorities may 

request and provide information for cases under examination or criminal investigation, in 

collection, on appeals, or under prosecution. 

The taxes covered by the Convention for purposes of this Article constitute a 

broader category of taxes than those referred to in Article 2 of the Convention. Exchange 

of information is authorized with respect to taxes of every kind imposed by a Contracting 

State at the national level. Accordingly, information may be exchanged with respect to 

U.S. estate and gift taxes, excise taxes or, with respect to Japan, nationally imposed value 

added taxes. 

Information exchange is not restricted by paragraph 1 of Article 1. Accordingly, 

information may be requested and provided under this Article with respect to persons 

who are not residents of either Contracting State. For example, if a third-country resident 

has a permanent establishment in Japan and that permanent establishment engages in 

transactions with a U.S. enterprise, the United States could request information with 

respect to that permanent establishment, even though the third-country resident is not a 

resident of either Contracting State. Similarly, if a third-country resident maintains a 

bank account in Japan, and the Internal Revenue Service has reason to believe that funds 

in that account should have been reported for U.S. tax purposes but have not been so 

reported, the Internal Revenue Service can request information from Japan with respect 

to that person’s account, even though that person is not the taxpayer under examination. 

Although the term “United States” does not encompass U.S. possessions or 

territories for most purposes of the Convention, section 7651 of the Code authorizes the 

Internal Revenue Service to utilize the provisions of the Code to obtain information from 

the U.S. possessions or territories pursuant to a proper request made under Article 26. If 

necessary to obtain requested information, the Internal Revenue Service could issue and 

enforce an administrative summons to the taxpayer, a tax authority (or a government 

agency in a U.S. possession or territory), or a third party located in a U.S. possession or 
19

territory. 

The final sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the requesting State may specify 

the form in which information is to be provided (e.g., authenticated copies of original 

documents (including books, papers, statements, records, accounts, and writings)). The 

intention is to ensure that the information may be introduced as evidence in the judicial 

proceedings of the requesting State. The requested State shall, if possible, provide the 

information in the form requested to the same extent that it could obtain information in 

that form under its own laws and administrative practices with respect to its own taxes.

Paragraph 2 of New Article 26

Paragraph 2 provides assurances that any information exchanged will be treated 

as secret, subject to the same disclosure constraints as information obtained under the 

laws of the requesting State. The confidentiality rules cover competent authority letters, 

including the letter requesting information. At the same time, it is understood that the 

requested State can disclose the minimum information contained in a competent authority 

letter (but not the letter itself) necessary for the requested State to be able to obtain or 

provide the requested information to the requesting State, without frustrating the efforts 

of the requesting State. If, however, court proceedings or the like under the domestic 

laws of the requested State necessitate the disclosure of the competent authority letter 

itself, the competent authority of the requested State may disclose such a letter unless the 

requesting State otherwise specifies.

Information received may be disclosed only to persons or authorities, including 

courts and administrative bodies, involved in the assessment, collection, or administration 

of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in 

relation to, the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 or the oversight of such functions. The 

information must be used by these persons in connection with the specified functions. 

Information may also be disclosed to legislative bodies, such as the tax-writing 

committees of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

engaged in the oversight of the preceding activities. Information received by these bodies 

must be for use in the performance of their role in overseeing the administration of U.S. 

tax laws. Information received may be disclosed in public court proceedings or in 

judicial decisions.

In situations in which the requested State determines that the requesting State 

does not comply with its duties regarding the confidentiality of the information 

exchanged under this Article, the requested State may suspend assistance under this 

Article until such time as proper assurance is given by the requesting State that those 

duties will indeed be respected. If necessary, the competent authorities may enter into 

specific arrangements or memoranda of understanding regarding the confidentiality of the 

information exchanged under this Article.

Paragraph 3 of New Article 26 
20

Paragraph 3 provides that the obligations undertaken in paragraphs 1 and 2 to 

exchange information do not require a Contracting State to carry out administrative 

measures that are at variance with the laws or administrative practice of either State. Nor 

is a Contracting State required to supply information not obtainable under the laws or 

administrative practice of either State, or to disclose trade secrets or other information, 

the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy. Finally, paragraph 3 clarifies 

that no obligation is imposed to obtain or provide information relating to certain 

confidential communications between a client and an attorney, solicitor, or other admitted 

legal representative. 

Thus, a requesting State may be denied information from the other State if the 

information would be obtained pursuant to procedures or measures that are broader than 

those available in the requesting State. However, the statute of limitations of the 

requesting State should govern a request for information. Thus, the requested State 

should attempt to obtain the information even if its own statute of limitations has passed. 

In many cases, relevant information will still exist in the business records of the taxpayer 

or a third party, even though it is no longer required to be kept for domestic tax purposes. 

While paragraph 3 states conditions under which a Contracting State is not 

obligated to comply with an information request from the other Contracting State, the 

requested State is not precluded from providing such information, and may, at its 

discretion, do so subject to the limitations of its internal law. 

Paragraph 4 of New Article 26

Paragraph 4 provides that when information is requested by a Contracting State in 

accordance with this Article, the requested State is obligated to obtain the requested 

information as if the tax in question were the tax of the requested State, even if that State 

has no direct tax interest in the case to which the request relates. In the absence of such a 

paragraph, some taxpayers have argued that subparagraph 3(a) prevents a Contracting 

State from requesting information from a bank or fiduciary that the Contracting State 

does not need for its own tax purposes. This paragraph clarifies that paragraph 3 does not 

impose such a restriction and that a Contracting State is not limited to providing only the 

information that it already has in its own files. 

Paragraph 5 of New Article 26

Paragraph 5 provides that a Contracting State may not decline to provide 

information because that information is held by banks, other financial institutions, 

nominees or persons acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity or because the information

relates to ownership interests in a person. Thus, paragraph 5 would effectively prevent a 

Contracting State from relying on paragraph 3 to argue that its domestic bank secrecy 

laws (or similar legislation relating to disclosure of financial information by financial 

institutions or intermediaries) override its obligation to provide information under 

paragraph 1. This paragraph also requires the disclosure of information regarding the 

beneficial owner of an interest in a person, such as the identity of a beneficial owner of 
21

bearer shares.

Subparagraphs 3(a) and (b) do not permit the requested State to decline a request 

where paragraph 4 or 5 applies. Paragraph 5 would apply, for instance, in situations in 

which the requested State’s inability to obtain the information was specifically related to 

the fact that the requested information was believed to be held by a bank or other 

financial institution. Thus, the application of paragraph 5 includes situations in which the 

tax authorities’ information-gathering powers with respect to information held by banks 

and other financial institutions are subject to different requirements than those that are 

generally applicable with respect to information held by persons other than banks or other 

financial institutions. This would, for example, be the case where the tax authorities can 

only exercise their information-gathering powers with respect to information held by 

banks and other financial institutions in instances where specific information regarding

the taxpayer under examination or investigation is available. This would also be the case 

where, for example, the use of information-gathering measures with respect to 

information held by banks and other financial institutions requires a higher probability 

that the information requested is held by the person believed to be in possession of the 

requested information than the degree of probability required for the use of informationgathering measures with respect to information believed to be held by persons other than 

banks or financial institutions. 

Paragraph 10 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that new Article 26 shall have 

effect from the date of entry into force of the Protocol without regard to the taxable year 

to which the matter relates, provided all of the conditions and requirements of the Article 

are satisfied. Thus, for example, the competent authority may seek information under 

new Article 26 with respect to a taxable year prior to the entry into force of the Protocol. 

Article XIII

Article XIII of the Protocol replaces Article 27 of the existing Convention with a 

new Article 27. New Article 27 provides rules under which the United States and Japan 

will lend each other assistance in the collection of certain revenue claims, as defined in 

paragraph 1 of the new Article 27. 

Paragraph 1 of New Article 27

Paragraph 1 provides that subject to the conditions set forth in new Article 27, the 

Contracting States shall lend assistance to each other in the collection of “revenue 

claims,” defined to be taxes (insofar as the taxation is not contrary to the Convention or 

any other agreement to which the United States and Japan are parties), together with 

interest, costs of collection, additions to such taxes, and civil or administrative penalties 

related to such taxes. Paragraph 5 of the Exchange of Notes sets forth the understanding 

of the Contracting States that the obligation to lend assistance shall be satisfied in cases 

where the State from which assistance is requested (the requested State) had made 

reasonable efforts to lend assistance, but was unsuccessful in collecting the revenue claim 

on behalf of the State requesting assistance (the applicant State).
22

Collection assistance is not limited by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 1 

of the Convention. Accordingly, assistance may be requested and provided under new 

Article 27 regarding revenue claims in respect of persons who are not residents of either

Contracting State, provided that all of the requirements of the Article are satisfied. For 

example, new Article 27 would permit the United States to request assistance from Japan 

regarding the collection of a finally determined revenue claim against an individual who 

is a resident of a third country, has assets in Japan, provided services in the United States, 

and filed a fraudulent U.S. tax return.

Paragraph 2 of New Article 27

Paragraph 2 limits the scope of revenue claims for which collection assistance 

may be sought pursuant to new Article 27. Subparagraph 2(a) limits the scope of revenue 

claims in respect of companies, and subparagraph 2(b) limits the scope of revenue claims

in respect of individuals.

The benefits afforded under new Article 27 are not intended to provide a means to 

bypass or circumvent the application of the mutual agreement procedure as set forth in 

Article 25 of the Convention. Consistent with this policy, subparagraph 2(a) provides 

that collection assistance will be available only for the following revenue claims in 

respect of a company: (i) revenue claims the determination of which are not eligible to be 

resolved by mutual agreement procedure pursuant to Article 25; (ii) revenue claims the 

determination of which have been mutually agreed upon pursuant to Article 25; or (iii) 

revenue claims with respect to the determination of which the company has terminated 

the mutual agreement procedure are eligible for collection assistance.

Subparagraph 2(b) describes those revenue claims against individuals which are 

eligible for collection assistance. A Contracting State may request collection assistance 

with respect to a revenue claim against an individual who is a national of that State (or a 

national of a third state) without limitation other than limitations imposed by the other 

paragraphs of new Article 27. However, in the case of revenue claims against an 

individual who is a national of the requested State, collection assistance shall be provided 

only for revenue claims with respect to which the individual or a person acting on behalf 

of the individual (i) has filed a fraudulent tax return or a fraudulent claim for refund; (ii) 

has willfully failed to file a tax return with the intention of evading taxes; or (iii) has 

transferred assets into the requested State to avoid collection of the revenue claim.

Paragraph 3 of New Article 27

Paragraph 3, which is equivalent to Article 27 of the existing Convention, applies 

notwithstanding the limitations of paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 provides for assistance in 

collection of taxes to the extent necessary to ensure that treaty benefits are enjoyed only 

by persons entitled to those benefits under the terms of the Convention, provided that the 

requested State agrees with such determination of improper granting of treaty benefits. 

For example, if the payer of a U.S.-source portfolio dividend receives a Form W-8BEN 
23

or other appropriate documentation from the payee, the withholding agent is generally 

permitted to withhold at the reduced portfolio dividend rate of 15 percent. If, however, it 

is subsequently discovered that the payee is merely acting as a nominee on behalf of a 

third-country resident, paragraph 3 of new Article 27 would require Japan to withhold 

and remit to the United States the additional tax that should have been collected by the 

U.S. withholding agent. 

Paragraph 4 of New Article 27

Paragraph 4 provides that new Article 27 shall apply only to revenue claims in 

respect of the taxes covered by Article 2 and certain additional taxes. 

In the case of Japan, the additional taxes with respect to which collection 

assistance may be requested are the consumption tax, the inheritance tax, and the gift tax. 

Paragraph 6 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that the term “consumption tax” means 

only the consumption tax imposed at the national level by Japan, and does not include 

any consumption tax imposed by a local authority of Japan.

In the case of the United States, the additional taxes with respect to which 

collection assistance may be requested are the Federal estate and gift taxes, the Federal 

excise tax on insurance policies issued by foreign insurers, the Federal excise taxes 

imposed with respect to private foundations, and the Federal taxes related to employment 

and self-employment. Paragraph 7 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that the term 

“Federal excise tax on insurance policies issued by foreign insurers” means taxes 

imposed pursuant to Section 4371 through 4374 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

Paragraph 8 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that the term “Federal excise tax imposed 

with respect to private foundations” means taxes imposed pursuant to sections 4940 

through 4948 of the Code. Paragraph 9 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that the term 

“Federal taxes related to employment and self-employment” means taxes imposed 

pursuant to Chapter 2 and Chapters 21 through 23A of the Internal Revenue Code. 

Paragraph 5 of New Article 27

Paragraph 5 requires the applicant State to certify that the revenue claim for 

which collection assistance is sought has been "finally determined." For purposes of 

paragraph 5, a revenue claim has been finally determined when the applicant State has 

the right under its internal law to collect the revenue claim and all administrative and 

judicial rights of the taxpayer to restrain collection in the applicant State have lapsed or 

been exhausted.

New paragraph 15 of the Protocol of 2003 as amended by paragraph 3 of Article 

XIV provides that for the purposes of evaluating the final determination of a U.S. revenue 

claim for which the United States may request assistance pursuant to Article 27, the 

existence of administrative or judicial rights available to the taxpayer in connection with 

the finally determined revenue claim that arise after collection actions have begun, such 

as collection due process rights (CDP) and collection appeals rights (CAP), shall not be 
24

interpreted by Japan to mean that such revenue claim is not finally determined under U.S. 

principles. New paragraph 15 of the 2003 Protocol does not limit a taxpayer’s access to 

CDP or CAP rights with respect to collection by the United States of a U.S. revenue 

claim, including revenue claims for which the United States has requested collection 

assistance from Japan. 

 

In the case of Japan, new paragraph 15 of the Protocol of 2003 provides that the 

right to take action pursuant to Article 36 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act (Law 

No. 139 of 1962) of Japan shall not be interpreted by the United States to mean that such 

revenue claim is not finally determined under Japanese principles. 

Paragraph 6 of New Article 27

Paragraph 6 of new Article 27 provides that when an application for assistance by 

the applicant State has been accepted for collection by the requested State pursuant to the 

provisions of Article 27, the revenue claim of the applicant State shall be treated, to the 

extent necessary for collection under the laws of the requested State, as assessed under 

the laws of the requested State as of the time the application is received, and shall be 

collected by the requested State as though such revenue claim were the requested State’s 

own revenue claim in accordance with the laws applicable to the collection of the 

requested State’s own revenue claims.

Paragraph 7 of New Article 27

Paragraph 7 of new Article 27 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph 6, acts of collection carried out by the requested State in pursuance of an 

application for assistance, which, according to the laws of the applicant State, would have 

the effect of suspending or interrupting the period of limitation on the collection of a 

revenue claim in the applicant State if carried out by the applicant State, shall also have 

this effect with respect to the revenue claim under the laws of the applicant State. For 

example, assume that in the pursuance of an application for assistance, the competent 

authority of the requested State had reached an agreement with the taxpayer to enter into 

a plan under which the revenue claim would be paid over time in a series of installments. 

If under the administrative practices of the applicant State, the use of an installment 

agreement would have the effect of extending the applicant State’s statute of limitations 

for collection, then by virtue of this paragraph 7, the conclusion of an installment 

agreement between the taxpayer and the requested State shall have the effect of extending 

the statute of limitations in the applicant State. Paragraph 7 obligates the requested State 

to inform the applicant State about such acts.

Paragraph 8 of New Article 27

Paragraph 8 of new Article 27 provides that the time limits of the requested State, 

i.e., time limitations beyond which a revenue claim cannot be enforced or collected, shall 

not apply to a revenue claim in respect of which the applicant State has made a request 

under this Article. Only the time limits of the applicant State are applicable. Thus, as 
25

long as a revenue claim can still be enforced or collected in the applicant State, the 

requested State may not refuse to pursue a request based on its own time limits. 

Paragraph 8 applies notwithstanding paragraph 6 of new Article 27, which requires the 

requested State to generally treat the revenue claim of the applicant State as its own 

revenue claim. 

Paragraph 8 also provides that the rules of the requested State giving its own 

revenue claims priority over the claims of other creditors shall not apply to a revenue 

claim in respect of which a request for assistance has been made under new Article 27. 

Such rules are often included in domestic laws to ensure that tax authorities can collect 

taxes to the fullest possible extent. 

The words “by reason of its nature as such” found at the end of the paragraph 

indicate that the time limits and priority rules of the requested State to which the 

paragraph applies are only those that are specific to unpaid taxes. Thus, the paragraph 

does not prevent the application of general rules concerning time limits or priority that

would apply to all debts (e.g., rules giving priority to a claim by reason of that claim 

having arisen or having been registered before another claim).

Paragraph 9 of New Article 27

Paragraph 9 of new Article 27 provides that nothing in Article 27 shall be 

construed as creating in the requested State any rights of administrative or judicial review 

of the applicant State's finally determined revenue claim. Thus, when an application for 

collection assistance has been accepted, the substantive validity of the applicant State's 

revenue claim cannot be challenged in an action in the requested State, irrespective of 

any such rights that may be available under the laws of either Contracting State. 

Paragraph 10 of New Article 27

Paragraph 10 of new Article 27 provides that if, at any time pending execution of 

an application for assistance under Article 27, the applicant State loses the right under its 

domestic law to collect the revenue claim or otherwise terminates collection, the 

competent authority of the applicant State shall promptly withdraw the application for 

assistance in collection and the requested State shall cease all measures of collection of 

the revenue claim.

Paragraph 11 of New Article 27

Paragraph 11 of new Article 27 provides that if, at any time pending execution of 

an application for assistance under Article 27, the applicant State suspends collection of 

the revenue claim according to the laws of the applicant State, the competent authority of 

the applicant State shall promptly notify the competent authority of the requested State of 

that fact, and the competent authority of the applicant State shall either suspend or 

withdraw its request at the option of the competent authority of the requested State and 

the requested State shall suspend or cease all measures of collection of the revenue claim 
26

accordingly.

Paragraph 12 of New Article 27

Paragraph 12 of new Article 27 provides that amounts collected by the requested 

State pursuant to this Article shall be remitted to the competent authority of the applicant 

State.

Paragraph 13 of New Article 27

Paragraph 13 of new Article 27 provides that unless the competent authorities of 

both Contracting States otherwise agree, the ordinary costs incurred in providing 

assistance in collection shall be borne by the requested State, and any extraordinary costs 

so incurred shall be borne by the applicant State.

Paragraph 14 of New Article 27

Paragraph 14 of new Article 27 sets forth limitations on the obligations imposed 

on the requested State. The requested State is at liberty to refuse to provide assistance in 

the cases referred to in the paragraph. However, if it does provide assistance in these 

cases, it remains within the framework of the Article and it cannot be objected that this 

State has failed to observe the provisions of the Article.

In the first place, the paragraph provides that a Contracting State is not bound to 

go beyond its own internal laws and administrative practice or those of the other State in 

fulfilling its obligations under the Article. However, types of administrative measures 

authorized for the purpose of the requested State’s tax must be utilized, even though 

invoked solely to provide assistance in the collection of taxes owed to the requesting 

State.

Paragraph 8 of this Article provides that a Contracting State’s time limits will not 

apply to a revenue claim in respect of which the other State has requested assistance. 

Subparagraph 14(a) is not intended to defeat that principle. Providing assistance with 

respect to a revenue claim after the requested State’s time limits have expired will not, 

therefore, be considered to be at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that 

or of the other Contracting State in cases where the time limits applicable to that claim 

have not expired in the requesting State.

Subparagraph 14(b) includes a limitation to carrying out measures contrary to 

public policy. 

Paragraph 15 of New Article 27

Paragraph 15 of new Article 27 sets forth additional limitations on the obligations 

imposed on the requested State. Under subparagraph 15(a), the requested State is not 

obliged to satisfy a request for assistance if the applicant State has not pursued all 
27

reasonable measures of collection available under its laws or administrative practices. 

Under subparagraph 15(b), the requested State may also reject a request for assistance for 

practical considerations, for instance if the costs that it would incur in collecting a 

revenue claim of the requesting State would exceed the amount of the revenue claim. 

Paragraph 16 of New Article 27

Paragraph 16 of new Article 27 mandates the competent authorities of both 

Contracting States to reach a written agreement on the mode of application of the Article 

before any assistance shall be lent under the Article other than pursuant to paragraph 3. 

The written agreement shall include: 1) measures to ensure comparable levels of 

assistance to each Contracting State; 2) a limit to the number of applications for 

assistance that a Contracting State may make in a particular year; and 3) minimum 

monetary thresholds for a revenue claim for which assistance is sought. In addition, the 

written agreement shall also set forth procedural rules related to the remittance of 

amounts collected pursuant to the provisions of the Article. 

Paragraph 10 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that new Article 27 shall have 

effect from the date of entry into force of the Protocol without regard to the taxable year 

to which the revenue claim relates, provided all of the conditions and requirements of the 

Article are satisfied. Thus, for example, a Contracting State could request assistance

under new Article 27 with respect to a revenue claim that arose prior to the entry into 

force of the Protocol. 

Article XIV

Article XIV of the Protocol makes numerous amendments to the Protocol of 2003.

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 1 of Article XIV of the Protocol makes two non-substantive changes to 

paragraph 1 of the Protocol of 2003. The two references to “United States excise tax” are 

replaced with the term “Federal excise tax.” Paragraph 7 of the Exchange of Notes 

clarifies that for purposes of revised paragraph 1 of the Protocol of 2003, the term 

“Federal excise tax on insurance policies issued by foreign insurers” means taxes 

imposed pursuant to Section 4371 through 4374 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

Paragraph 8 of the Exchange of Notes clarifies that for purposes of revised paragraph 1 of 

the Protocol of 2003, the term “Federal excise tax imposed with respect to private 

foundations” means taxes imposed pursuant to Section 4940 through 4948 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 of Article XIV of the Protocol deletes paragraph 9 of the Protocol of 

2003 in order to conform with changes relating to capital gains that Article V of the 

Protocol makes to Article 13 of the Convention. 
28

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 of Article XIV of the Protocol adds two new paragraphs to the 

Protocol of 2003. New paragraph 14 of the Protocol of 2003 (discussed below) sets forth 

a number of clarifications and rules regarding the application of the mandatory binding 

arbitration provisions in new paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 25 of the Convention as 

modified by Article XI of the Protocol. New paragraph 15 of the Protocol of 2003 is 

discussed above in the explanation of paragraph 5 of new Article 27 of the Convention. 

New Subparagraph 14(a) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(a) of the Protocol of 2003 is discussed above in the 

explanation of new paragraph 5 of Article 25 of the Convention as amended by Article 

XI of the Protocol.

New Subparagraph 14(b) of the Protocol of 2003 

New subparagraph 14(b) of the Protocol of 2003 sets forth rules that the 

competent authorities shall follow for selecting the members of the arbitration panel. The 

arbitration panel shall consist of three individual members. The members appointed shall 

not be employees nor have been employees within the twelve-month period prior to the 

date on which the arbitration proceeding begins, of the tax administration, the Ministry of 

Finance or the Treasury Department of the Contracting State which identifies them. Each 

competent authority shall select one member of the arbitration panel. In the event that the 

competent authority of one Contracting State fails to select a member for the arbitration 

panel in the manner and within the time periods agreed by the competent authorities 

pursuant to new subparagraph 7(i)(iv) of Article 25 of the Convention, the competent 

authority of the other Contracting State shall select a second member. The two members 

of the arbitration panel who have been selected shall select the third member, who shall 

serve as Chair of the arbitration panel. If the two initial members of the arbitration panel 

fail to select the third member in the manner and within the time periods agreed by the 

competent authorities pursuant to new subparagraph 7(i)(iv) of Article 25 of the 

Convention, these members shall be dismissed, and each competent authority shall select 

a new member of the arbitration panel. The Chair shall not be a national or lawful 

permanent resident of either Contracting State. Furthermore, the members appointed 

shall not have any prior involvement with the specific matters at issue in the proceeding 

for which they are being considered as arbitrators.

New subparagraph 14(c) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(c) of the Protocol of 2003 sets forth conditions under which 

the arbitration process with respect to particular cases shall terminate. Subparagraph 

14(c)(i) provides that an arbitration proceeding with respect to a case shall terminate if 

the competent authorities reach a mutual agreement to resolve the case. Subparagraph 

14(c)(ii) provides that an arbitration proceeding with respect to a case shall terminate if 
29

the presenter of the case withdraws his request for arbitration. Subparagraph 14(c)(iii) 

provides that an arbitration proceeding with respect to a case shall terminate if a decision 

concerning the case is rendered by a court or administrative tribunal of one of the 

Contracting States during the arbitration proceeding. Subparagraph 14(c)(iv) provides 

that an arbitration proceeding with respect to a case shall terminate if any concerned 

person or their authorized representatives or agents willfully violates the written 

nondisclosure statement required by new subparagraph 5(b) of Article 25, and the 

competent authorities of both Contracting States agree that such violation should result in 

the termination of the arbitration proceeding.

New Subparagraph 14(d) of the Protocol of 2003

Subparagraph 14(d) of the Protocol of 2003 sets forth the rules governing the 

submission of proposed resolutions for consideration by the arbitration panel. Each

competent authority shall be permitted to submit a proposed resolution addressing each 

adjustment or similar issue raised in the case. Such proposed resolution shall be a 

resolution of the entire case and shall reflect without modification all matters in the case 

previously agreed between the competent authorities. Such proposed resolution shall be 

limited to a disposition of specific monetary amounts (for example, of income, profit, 

gain or expense) or, where specified, the maximum rate of tax charged pursuant to the 

Convention for each adjustment or similar issue in the case. Each competent authority 

shall also be permitted to submit a supporting position paper for consideration by the 

arbitration panel.

New Subparagraph 14(e) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(e) of the Protocol of 2003 provides a special rule for 

proposed resolutions involving an initial determination of a threshold question (such as 

the existence of a permanent establishment). Subparagraph 14(e) provides that 

notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph 14(d) of the Protocol of 2003, it is 

understood that, in the case of an arbitration proceeding concerning: (i) the tax liability of 

an individual with respect to whose State of residence the competent authorities have 

been unable to reach agreement; (ii) the taxation of the business profits of an enterprise 

with respect to which the competent authorities have been unable to reach an agreement 

on whether a permanent establishment exists; or (iii) such other issues the determination 

of which are contingent on resolution of similar threshold questions, the proposed 

resolutions and position papers may include positions regarding (i), (ii) or (iii) above, in 

addition to proposed resolutions limited to specific monetary amounts (for example, of 

income, profit, gain or expense) or, where specified, the maximum rate of tax charged 

pursuant to the Convention due as a consequence of the arbitration panel’s determination 

regarding residency, the existence of a permanent establishment or other threshold 

questions. The determination of the arbitration panel regarding the threshold question 

may preclude the need for a further determination regarding specific monetary amounts 

or the maximum rate of tax. 

New Subparagraph 14(f) of the Protocol of 2003
30

New subparagraph 14(f) of the Protocol of 2003 provides that where an 

arbitration proceeding concerns a case comprising multiple adjustments or issues each 

requiring a disposition of specific monetary amounts of income, profit, gain or expense 

or, where specified, the maximum rate of tax charged pursuant to the Convention, the 

proposed resolution may propose a separate disposition for each adjustment or similar 

issue. This flexibility permits each adjustment or issue to be resolved independently 

through the arbitration proceeding, such that the determination of the arbitration panel 

will constitute a mutual agreement of the entirety of the issues in the case.

New Subparagraph 14(g) of the Protocol of 2003 

New subparagraph 14(g) of the Protocol of 2003 provides that each competent 

authority shall receive the proposed resolution and position paper submitted by the other 

competent authority, and shall be permitted to submit a reply submission to the 

arbitration panel. Each competent authority shall also receive the reply submission of the 

other competent authority.

New Subparagraph 14(h) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(h) of the Protocol of 2003 provides that the presenter of the 

case shall be permitted to submit for consideration by the arbitration panel a paper setting 

forth the presenter’s analysis and views of the case. The submission by the presenter of 

the case is not a proposed resolution that the arbitration panel could select in making its 

determination. The submission by the presenter may not include any information not 

provided to the competent authorities prior to the initiation of the arbitration proceeding. 

The competent authorities shall determine an appropriate time frame for submission of 

such paper by the presenter in order to ensure that the competent authorities have 

sufficient time to consider the information.

New Subparagraph 14(i) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(i) of the Protocol of 2003 provides that the arbitration panel 

shall deliver a determination in writing to the competent authorities. The determination 

reached by the arbitration panel in the arbitration proceeding shall be limited to one of the 

proposed resolution submitted by one competent authority for each adjustment or similar 

issue and any threshold questions, and shall not include a rationale or any other 

explanation of the determination. The determination of the arbitration panel shall have no 

precedential value with respect to the application of the Convention in any other case.

New Subparagraph 14(j) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(j) of the Protocol of 2003 provides that unless the 

competent authorities of both Contracting States agree to a longer time period, the 

presenter of the case shall have 45 days from receiving the determination of the 

arbitration panel to notify, in writing, the competent authority of the Contracting State to 
31

whom the case was presented, his acceptance of the determination. In the event the case 

is pending in litigation and the presenter desires to accept the determination, each 

concerned person who is a party to the litigation must also advise, within the same time 

frame, the relevant court of its acceptance of the determination of the arbitration panel as 

the resolution by mutual agreement and its intention to withdraw from the consideration 

of the court the issues resolved through the proceeding. If any concerned person fails to 

so advise the relevant competent authority and relevant court within this time frame, the 

determination of the arbitration panel shall be considered not to have been accepted by 

the presenter of the case. Where the determination of the arbitration panel is not

accepted, the case will not be eligible for any subsequent further consideration by the 

competent authorities.

New Subparagraph 14(k) of the Protocol of 2003

New subparagraph 14(k) of the Protocol of 2003 provides that the fees and 

expenses of the members of the arbitration panel, as well as any costs incurred in 

connection with the proceeding by the Contracting States, shall be borne equitably by the 

competent authorities.

Article XV

This Article contains rules for bringing the Protocol into force and giving effect to 

its provisions.

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 1 provides for the ratification of the Protocol by both Contracting 

States according to their constitutional and statutory requirements. The Protocol shall 

enter into force on the date that the Contracting States exchange instruments of 

ratification.

In the United States, the process leading to ratification and entry into force is as 

follows: Once a treaty has been signed by authorized representatives of the two 

Contracting States, the Department of State sends the treaty to the President who formally 

transmits it to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, which requires 

approval by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting. Prior to this vote, however, it 

generally has been the practice for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to hold 

hearings on the treaty and make a recommendation regarding its approval to the full 

Senate. Both Government and private sector witnesses may testify at these hearings. 

After the Senate gives its advice and consent to ratification of the protocol or treaty, an 

instrument of ratification is drafted for the President's signature. The President’s 

signature completes the process in the United States.

Paragraph 2

The date on which a treaty enters into force is not necessarily the date on which 
32

its provisions take effect. Paragraph 2, therefore, provides rules regarding when the 

provisions of the Protocol will have effect. 

Under subparagraph 2(a), the Protocol will have effect with respect to taxes 

withheld at source (principally dividends, interest and royalties) for amounts paid or 

credited on or after the first day of the third month following the date on which the 

Convention enters into force. For example, if instruments of ratification are exchanged 

on April 25 of a given year, the withholding rates specified in new Article 11 of the 

Convention would be applicable to any interest paid or credited on or after July 1 of that 

year. This rule allows the benefits of the withholding reductions to be put into effect as 

soon as possible, without waiting until the following calendar year. The two- to 

three-month delay is required to allow sufficient time for withholding agents to be 

informed about the change in withholding rates. If, after the provisions regarding taxes 

withheld at source have entered into force, a U.S. withholding agent withholds at a higher 

rate than that provided by the Convention (perhaps because the withholding agent was 

not able to re-program its computers before the payment was made), a beneficial owner 

of the income that is a resident of Japan may make a claim for refund pursuant to section 

1464 of the Code. 

For all other taxes, subparagraph 2(b) specifies that the Protocol will have effect 

for any taxable period beginning on or after January 1 of the year following entry into 

force. 

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2, the 

mandatory binding arbitration rules provided in new paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 25 

of the Convention as amended by Article XI of the Protocol shall have effect with respect 

to (a) cases that are under consideration by the competent authorities as of the date on 

which the Protocol enters into force and (b) cases that come under such consideration 

after the date on which the Protocol enters into force. Thus, the mandatory binding 

arbitration rules may apply with respect to tax liabilities (or potential tax liabilities) 

arising before the Protocol enters into force.

With respect to cases that are under consideration by the competent authorities as 

of the date on which the Protocol enters into force, the commencement date (defined in 

new paragraph 7(b) of Article 25) shall be the date on which the Protocol enters into 

force. As a result, cases that are open and unresolved as of the entry into force of the 

Protocol will go into binding arbitration on the later of two years after the entry into force 

of the Protocol (unless both competent authorities have previously agreed to a different 

date) and the earliest date upon which all the agreements required by new subparagraph 

7(c) of Article 25 have been received by both competent authorities.

Paragraph 4

Paragraph 4 contains special rules regarding the effective dates of the provisions 
33

of revised Articles 26 and 27 of the Convention as amended by Articles XII and XIII 

respectively of the Protocol. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 of this 

Article XV, the provisions of revised Articles 26 and 27 shall have effect from the date of 

entry into force of the Protocol, and as clarified by paragraph 10 of the Exchange of 

Notes, without regard to the matter or revenue claim to which the request relates, 

provided all of the conditions and requirements of the respective Articles are satisfied. 

Paragraph 5

Paragraph 5 provides that notwithstanding the entry into force of the Protocol, an 

individual who is entitled to the benefits of Article 20 of the existing Convention (relating 

to teachers and researchers) at the time of the entry into force of the Protocol shall 

continue to be entitled to such benefits until such time as the individual would have 

ceased to be entitled to such benefits if the Protocol had not entered into force.

Paragraph 6

Paragraph 6 provides that the Protocol shall remain in effect as long as the 

Convention remains in force.