-6-
to shift the burden of proof under section 7491(a), and the
burden therefore remains with petitioner.
II. Taxability of Payments Petitioner Received From the Tribe
Respondent determined that the amounts petitioner received
as compensation for his services as an elected official of the
tribal council are subject to Federal income tax. Petitioner
contends that these amounts are exempt from tax.6
It is well established that Native Americans, or American
Indians, as U.S. citizens, are subject to the Federal income tax
unless an exemption is created by treaty or statute. Squire v.
Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6 (1956), Estate of Poletti v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 554, 557-558 (1992), affd. 34 F.3d 742 (9th
Cir. 1994). 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). While citing numerous treaties and statutes,
petitioner has pointed to no provision that would exempt the
compensation he received.
We address the major arguments that petitioner raises, none
of which we find exempts the compensation petitioner received.
6We have treated petitioner as admitting that his
compensation from GLITC and Simpson is taxable. Petitioner has
not introduced any evidence with regard to this compensation to
overcome his admission. See Doll v. Commissioner, supra. The
analysis of the taxability of these payments is the same as that
relating to petitioner’s compensation for his services on the
tribal council.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011