Stanley K. and Sandra B. Evanko - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          "additional amount" of compensation retired military instructors            
          are entitled to receive from the employing school and the maximum           
          portion of that additional amount that will be reimbursed by the            
          Federal Government.  Id. at 675.  The "additional amount" is, in            
          effect, an inducement offered to persuade retired personnel to              
          accept employment as JROTC instructors.  Id. at 676.  Active duty           
          pay is merely a guideline in determining the level at which JROTC           
          instructors are to be compensated.                                          
               In Lyle v. Commissioner, supra at 674-675, the Court                   
          explained why retired officers serving as JROTC instructors do              
          not receive nontaxable "allowances".  Only officers who are                 
          entitled to receive "basic pay" are entitled to an allowance for            
          subsistence, in lieu of meals in kind, and a basic allowance for            
          quarters, unless the officer occupies quarters provided by the              
          military.  See 37 U.S.C. secs. 402 and 403 (1994).  The taxpayer            
          did not qualify for these allowances because he did not receive             
          "basic pay".  He did not receive "basic pay" because he was not             
          on "active duty".  See 37 U.S.C. sec. 204 (1994).  The taxpayer             
          was not on "active duty" because, as a retired military JROTC               
          instructor, he "is not, while so employed, considered to be on              
          active duty or inactive duty training for any purpose."  10                 
          U.S.C. sec. 2031(d)(2).                                                     
               Petitioners object to the Court's "reliance" on the language           
          of 10 U.S.C. sec. 2031(d)(2).  They argue that the provision is             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011