Michael W. Allen - Page 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