-8-
council members from the definition of “wages” for the purposes
of FICA, FUTA, and income tax withholding. Petitioner
misconstrues the revenue ruling and its relevance. The revenue
ruling does not exempt petitioner’s income from tax. See Allen
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-118; Doxtator v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-113.
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 (9th Cir. 1983); Jourdain v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 980, 986-987 (1979), affd. 617 F.2d 507
(8th Cir. 1980). Petitioner has not shown that either a treaty
or a statute specifically exempts any of his compensation.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that the
compensation petitioner received is subject to tax.
III. Petitioner’s Unexplained 2001 Adjustment
Petitioner claimed an unexplained adjustment to gross income
of $69,916 on his return for 2001. Petitioner did not provide
any evidence concerning this adjustment. This amount does not
correspond to any items of income he reported on his return for
2001, and it is unclear from the record how petitioner arrived at
this amount. Presumably petitioner adjusted his gross income to
subtract the income he believed was not taxable. As explained
previously, payments that petitioner received from the tribe and
other entities are taxable because no explicit statutory
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011