- 9 -
In their oral and written presentations to the Court,
petitioners evince a belief that the statutory interpretations as
expressed in the Court’s opinions cited above are incomplete.
According to petitioners, the opinion of the Court in Lyle did
not take into consideration that a JROTC instructor has a “dual
relationship” with the Army and the school. The Court, however
did address this issue in Lyle v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. at 674.
There the Court notes that:
Although the Federal Government reimburses the school
districts for one-half the “additional amount” paid to the
retired officers, the responsibility for disbursing these
funds and determining the ultimate amount of the retired
officers’ compensation rests with the employing school.
Since the school, and not the Federal Government, is the
employer, it is difficult to see how any compensation
petitioner received from the school could be considered a
subsistence or quarters allowance received from the Federal
Government. We find that while petitioner served as a Junior
ROTC instructor, his sole employment relationship was with
the Ector County School District and that he did not receive
any nontaxable quarters or subsistence “allowances” from the
district.
Cadet Command Regulation (CCR) 145-2, par. 4-4 (May 1,
2006), submitted as evidence by petitioners, comports with the
finding of the Court in Lyle. That provision states that the
“school or school board is the employing agency of all JROTC
personnel” and that the Army will reimburse the school in
accordance with AR 145-2. According to the regulation, although
the Army is restricted in the amount it can reimburse the school
or school board, the school or school board is not restricted in
the amount it can pay a JROTC instructor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007