- 13 -
Indeed, as petitioner acknowledged at trial, “I don’t get paid
allowances.” Further, petitioner received nothing from the
Federal Government, other than the retired pay to which he was
entitled regardless of whether he participated in the JROTC
program. Second, petitioner’s JROTC pay was not received “by
reason of [petitioner’s] * * * status or service as a member of
such uniformed services”. Rather, as this Court has previously
held, the pay received by a retired officer as an instructor in
the JROTC program is not received by reason of the officer’s
status as a “member or former member” of the uniformed services,
but rather is received as compensation for services rendered to
the employing school district. See Tucker v. Commissioner, supra
(citing Lyle v. Commissioner, supra at 675-676).
In view of the foregoing, we hold that no portion of
petitioner’s compensation from HISD is a “qualified military
benefit” within the meaning of section 134(a). Petitioner’s
reliance on the “member or former member” language in section
134(b) is misplaced.
Conclusion
No portion of the compensation received by petitioner in his
capacity as a JROTC instructor from HISD is excludable from gross
income. Respondent’s determination is therefore sustained.
We have considered all of the other arguments made by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011