30
not considered U.S. employees for other purposes. Cf. Matthews
v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner's performance was regularly evaluated by his NATO
supervisors. We do not find such arrangement to be contrary to a
transferee's status as a separated employee.
In sum, we find that in the years in issue, petitioner was
an employee of NATO, and not of the United States or an agency
thereof.
b. Petitioner's Income Under Section 911
We have decided that petitioner in the years in question was
the employee of NATO and not of the United States. This means
that the restrictions of section 911(b)(1)(B)(ii) do not apply to
petitioner here because although he was paid by the United
States, as the parties have stipulated, he was not an employee of
the United States. This does not mean that the exemption from
income under section 911 was broadened by the 1981 amendment to
section 911, but rather that the exclusion from that exemption
from income was somewhat narrowed, so that before the benefits of
section 911 could be denied the employee, it had to be shown that
he was both paid by the United States and at that time was also
an employee of the United States. Since we have found that
petitioner was not an employee of the United States, the
restriction on his right to claim section 911 benefits is
removed.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011