- 7 - not be considered an attempt to cap or limit the amount of pay that may be agreed upon between the individual Junior ROTC instructor and the instructor's employer, however, the Army will pay no more than the computed Army formula. Salary will be recomputed as military pay raises and/or cost of living increases occur. It is clear from the contract language that petitioner was able to negotiate his own rate of pay and that petitioner's active duty rate of pay was only a "minimum" guideline. Petitioner conceded at trial that each school district contract was different. In Lyle v. Commissioner, supra, this Court stated that, "fairly construed", 10 U.S.C. section 2031(d) does "no more than establish a formula" for calculating the minimum amount of compensation a given school district would pay a JROTC instructor. See Lyle v. Commissioner, supra at 675. Regardless of the reimbursement arrangement or the scale by which his income was measured, it is clear that petitioner received income from the school district as wages for his work as a JROTC instructor. Simply put, if petitioner did not work as a JROTC instructor, the school district would not have paid him; petitioner's income from the school district was for services rendered, and, thus, it is not excludable from income. It is undisputed in the record that petitioner retired from the U.S. Army in 1977 and was not on active duty in 1995. Additionally, 10 U.S.C. section 2031(d) clearly states that aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011