which a United States court is compelled to actually enforce the collection of a foreign tax judgment, and prohibiting its use in any case requiring a United States Court to pass on the validity of, or give effect to, a foreign revenue law. Because this revision creates a circuit split on an issue where such a division is unwarranted, I dissent from the majority’s formulation of the revenue rule. B. As is evident from the above discussion, the revenue rule is a discretionary doctrine, one that is guided by “constitutional and prudential considerations.... ” Boots, 80 F.3d at 587. See also Attorney Gen. of Canada, 268 F.3d at 113 (“We do not suggest that the revenue rule always bars United States courts from furthering the tax policies of foreign sovereigns.”); Trapilo, 130 F.3d at 550 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Boots, 80 F.3d at 587
recognizing that the courts jurisdiction to enforce supportmoney judgments is predicated upon the continued dependency of the children in question recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin recognizing use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of the courts inherent power to enforce its judgments holding that courts review judgments not statements in opinions recognizing that our courts will normally not enforce foreign tax judgments