-6-
respondent. That is because resolution of the issue presented
does not depend on who has the burden of proof.
It is petitioners’ position that they are entitled under
section 112 to exclude from their gross income the wages that Mr.
Hildebran received during each of the years at issue for his work
as a merchant marine on the Shughart. In support of their
position, petitioners argue that
petitioner herein [Mr. Hildebran] experienced substan-
tial incidents of military standing including but not
limited to a signed agreement committing him to orders
from the United States Navy, training in small arms and
anti-terrorism and required inoculations for various
illnesses. Moreover, petitioner wore uniforms and had
to have security clearances prior to deployment under
the Military Sealift Command. These trappings would
seem sufficient for petitioner to claim status as an
[sic] uniformed member of the United States Armed
Forces pursuant to the definition contained in I.R.C.
Section 7701(a)(15) and, therefore, eligibility for
exclusion of his relevant income under I.R.C. Section
112.
It is respondent’s position that petitioners are not enti-
tled under section 112 to exclude from their gross income the
wages that Mr. Hildebran received during each of the years at
issue for his work as a merchant marine on the Shughart. In
support of respondent’s position, respondent argues that
I.R.C. section 112 provides that gross income does
not include compensation received for active service as
a member of the Armed Forces of the United States for
any month during which the taxpayer served in a combat
zone. I.R.C. section 7701(a)(15) defines the term
“Armed Forces of the United States” as including all
active and reserve components of the uniformed services
that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Department
of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011