20
the benefits of section 911. By making this concession,
petitioner agrees with respondent that he was "paid" by the
United States or an agency thereof, thereby eliminating from
consideration any question regarding who paid petitioner for the
services he performed for NATO. It is clear that before
enactment of ERTA in 1981, the United States retained the power
to tax its nationals by following the hiring procedures set forth
in the London Agreement. Amaral v. Commissioner, supra at 816.
Respondent argues that following the London Agreement
procedures conclusively determines that petitioner is a U.S
employee pursuant to section 911(b)(1)(B)(ii), as amended by
ERTA, on the theory that the language "employ and assign" of the
Ottawa Agreement is sufficient, in and of itself, to resolve the
employment question without consideration of the facts and
circumstances involved herein. Article 19 of that agreement
contemplates that member states which hire and pay their
nationals may "assign or detail" those persons for duty with
NATO. Such persons are considered "seconded" to NATO. Amaral v.
Commissioner, supra at 806. Respondent contends that both
detailed and transferred employees are "seconded" from the United
States and that, therefore, both are assigned to NATO and both
are U.S. employees, taxable on the salaries they receive from the
United States. While the term "detail" is defined as the
"assignment or loan" of an employee to an international
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011