- 6 - nonemployee compensation of $6,380. The $6,380 represented the value of the lodging furnished to petitioner.4 Petitioner filed a Form 1040 for 2001. On his return, petitioner listed his occupation as “computer operator”, and he reported his wages as disclosed on his Form W-2 from Raytheon. Petitioner did not, however, include in gross income the value of the lodging furnished to him; rather, he attached to his return a statement that was substantively identical to the statement that he attached to his 2000 return.5 Notice of Deficiency In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to an exclusion under section 119 for the value of the lodging furnished to him and that petitioner 4 See supra note 3. 5 As previously stated, supra note 2, Pine Gap was authorized under a treaty between the United States and Australia that “generally provides for establishing and operating a facility for general defense research”. Hargrove v. Commissioner, supra at n.10. [U]nder the treaty, contractors’ income shall be deemed not to have been derived in Australia for Australian tax purposes as long as it is not exempt from and is subject to tax in the United States. * * * If the lodging income were exempt from U.S. tax, this provision would entitle Australia to tax it instead. Id. In the instant case, there is no suggestion whatsoever in the record that petitioner filed Australian tax returns or paid Australian tax on the value of his lodging in Alice Springs. See Rule 121(d).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007