- 6 -
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); see Allen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-11; see also George v.
Commissioner, supra; Rev. Rul. 2006-20, 2006-15 I.R.B. 746. Any
exemption must be based on the clear and unambiguous language of
a statute or treaty. Squire v. Capoeman, supra; see Allen v.
Commissioner, supra. Petitioner has not shown that any of the
cited treaties or statutes specifically exempts any of his
compensation.
In this case, petitioner relies on Executive Order 13175 of
November 6, 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000). He
contends that the Executive order overrides all prior law on the
subject. Petitioner’s reliance on Executive Order 13175 is
misplaced. As described in our findings, the Executive order
provides policymaking criteria for agencies to follow when
formulating and implementing policies that have tribal
implications. However, the Executive order does not contain any
language regarding the taxation of Native Americans. Further,
section 10 of the Executive order states:
This order is intended only to improve the internal
management of the executive branch, and is not intended
to create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a
party against the United States, its agencies, or any
person. [Exec. Order 13175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67252.]
Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not change decided law that
Native Americans are subject to income tax. In any event, an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011