- 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 a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011