- 5 -
E.1.1.2.
Petitioners propose that 10 U.S.C. sec. 2031(d) establishes
equitable parity in the compensation of retired and active duty
instructors. Petitioners argue for an exclusion from income
equal to the sum of the allowances received by active duty
members of the same rank. Otherwise, the disposable income that
petitioner would receive as a JROTC instructor would be less than
that of an active duty officer performing identical services.
The issues petitioners raise already have been addressed by
this Court. See Lyle v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 668 (1981), affd.
without published opinion 673 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1982); Bynam v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-142; Tucker v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-373.
In Lyle v. Commissioner, supra, the Court held that retired
military personnel may not rely on 10 U.S.C. section 2031(d) to
exclude from income wages received as a JROTC instructor. The
Court found: (1) The plain language of 10 U.S.C. section 2031(d)
does not authorize an exclusion from gross income for amounts
paid to JROTC instructors not on active duty; and (2) JROTC
instructors are employed by the local school district and are
paid for services, partly funded by the Federal Government,
rendered to that school district.
Petitioner received in 2003 her regular retired pay to which
she was entitled whether or not she performed any services. She
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007