William H. Adair and Patricia Adair - Page 22

                                                  22                                                    
            between the United States and an international organization.                                
            Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243,                            
            253 (1984); Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 439 (1921).  They are                           
            not laws by which a nation imposes a tax on its citizens.                                   
                  An examination of existing law and the facts herein is                                
            required in light of the ERTA change.                                                       
                  The conference report accompanying ERTA states:                                       
                        The bill extends the benefits of the exclusion to                               
                  individuals who receive compensation from the U.S. or any                             
                  agency thereof, but who are not employees of the U.S. or any                          
                  agency thereof.  Thus, for example, the bill extends the                              
                  exclusion to certain overseas independent contractors and                             
                  teachers at certain schools for U.S. dependents who are not                           
                  employees of the U.S. or any agency thereof.  [H. Rept. 97-                           
                  215 (1981), 1981-2 C.B. 481, 486.]                                                    
                  Respondent argues that petitioner is not a member of the                              
            protected class carved out by the ERTA amendment as he is not an                            
            independent contractor.  Respondent further argues that as                                  
            petitioner is an employee, he is not an intended beneficiary of                             
            the amendment and should not be eligible for the section 911                                
            exclusion.  The conference explanation does not limit the                                   
            exclusion to independent contractors and teachers but merely                                
            provides examples of beneficiaries of the legislation.  Although                            
            the most obvious beneficiaries of the amendment may be                                      
            independent contractors, the language of the amendment speaks for                           
            itself, and we cannot determine from the legislative history                                
            alone that petitioner was not an intended beneficiary of the                                
            amendment.  The legislation clearly extends the benefits of                                 





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011