- 12 -
Capoeman, supra; Estate of Poletti v. Commissioner, supra. For
such an exemption to be valid, it must be based upon clearly
expressed language in a statute or treaty. Squire v. Capoeman,
supra; United States v. Anderson, 625 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir.
1980); Estate of Peterson v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 249, 250
(1988).
Petitioners argue that Mrs. Doxtator's judicial officer
compensation is exempt from taxation because she was "an elected
officer of a sovereign". Petitioners persist in their argument
premised on Mrs. Doxtator's status as an elected officer even
though the evidence establishes, and they conceded at trial, that
she was not an elected official.7 Regardless, her status as
elected or appointed is not significant in determining whether
the amounts paid to her for her services as a judicial officer
are subject to income tax. A tribal official, whether elected or
appointed, is subject to income tax on the compensation received
for rendering services to the tribe unless a treaty or statute
specifically provides an exemption. See Hoptowit v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 137, 145-148 (1982), affd. 709 F.2d 564
7 Petitioners' emphasis on Mrs. Doxtator's status as an
elected official appears to be an attempt to invoke Rev. Rul. 59-
354, 1959-2 C.B. 24, which excludes compensation for the duties
performed by elected tribal council members from the definition
of "wages" for purposes of FICA, FUTA, and income tax
withholding. However, even if Rev. Rul 59-354, supra, applied to
Mrs. Doxtator's compensation, it would provide no exemption from
income tax. Moreover, respondent determined that Mrs. Doxtator's
compensation was income from self-employment, not wages subject
to withholding.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011