In its judgement dated 27 September, 2006 in the case MIL (Investments) S.A. the Tax Court of Canada had to deal with specific issues on the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Tax Court of Canada concluded that the tax treaty between Canada and Luxembourg does not contain an inherent anti-avoidance rule irrespective of the fact that both contracting states enacted domestic anti-avoidance rules prior to entering into the tax treaty. Further, the Tax Court of Canada expressly states that in interpreting the tax treaty one may only consult the OECD commentary in existence at the time the tax treaty was negotiated without reference to subsequent revisions.