- 4 -
Petitioner contends that the unreported portion of his JROTC
pay represents "qualified military benefits" that are excludable
from gross income pursuant to section 134 and 10 U.S.C. sec.
2031(d) (1994). Petitioner relies on the statutes and Department
of Defense (DOD) Directive No. 1205.13 (Dec. 26, 1995), which
provide that the total compensation received by a retiree-
instructor is to be equal to the difference between retired pay
and active duty pay plus "allowances" that the retiree-instructor
would receive if ordered to active duty. He 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 his income equal to the sum of
the allowances received by active duty members of his rank.
Otherwise, according to petitioner, the disposable income that he
would receive as a JROTC instructor would be less than that of an
active duty officer performing identical services.
The issues petitioners raise have already been addressed by
this Court. See Lyle v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 668 (1981), affd.
without published opinion 673 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1982); Bynam v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-142; Tucker v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-373.
In Lyle v. Commissioner, supra, the Court held that retired
military personnel may not rely on 10 U.S.C. sec. 2031(d) to
exclude from income salary received as a JROTC instructor. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011