- 8 - The issue before us is whether the pay that petitioner received as a JROTC instructor included (or should be deemed to include) nontaxable military allowances, or whether such pay (in its entirety) was nothing other than an amount received as compensation for services rendered. Petitioner contends that a portion ($17,073) of his JROTC pay represents “qualified military benefits” that are excludable from gross income pursuant to 10 U.S.C. sec. 2031(d) and section 134 of the Internal Revenue Code. We disagree. Petitioner relies heavily on the statute and the DOD directive providing that the total compensation received by a retiree-instructor is equal to the difference between retired pay and active duty pay plus “allowances” that the retiree-instructor would receive if ordered to active duty. In this regard, petitioner proposes that the statute and the DOD directive establish “equitable parity” in the compensation of retired and active duty instructors. Petitioner then argues for an exclusion from income equal to the sum of the allowances received by active duty members of the same rank; otherwise, in petitioner’s view, the disposable income that he would receive as a JROTC instructor would be less than that of an active duty officer performing identical services. However, petitioner’s contention is flawed in several fundamental respects.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011