David A. Popper and Claudette B. Stulz - Page 10




                                        - 9 -                                         
               In their oral and written presentations to the Court,                  
          petitioners evince a belief that the statutory interpretations as           
          expressed in the Court’s opinions cited above are incomplete.               
          According to petitioners, the opinion of the Court in Lyle did              
          not take into consideration that a JROTC instructor has a “dual             
          relationship” with the Army and the school.  The Court, however             
          did address this issue in Lyle v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. at 674.             
          There the Court notes that:                                                 
               Although the Federal Government reimburses the school                  
               districts for one-half the “additional amount” paid to the             
               retired officers, the responsibility for disbursing these              
               funds and determining the ultimate amount of the retired               
               officers’ compensation rests with the employing school.                
               Since the school, and not the Federal Government, is the               
               employer, it is difficult to see how any compensation                  
               petitioner received from the school could be considered a              
               subsistence or quarters allowance received from the Federal            
               Government. We find that while petitioner served as a Junior           
               ROTC instructor, his sole employment relationship was with             
               the Ector County School District and that he did not receive           
               any nontaxable quarters or subsistence “allowances” from the           
               district.                                                              
               Cadet Command Regulation (CCR) 145-2, par. 4-4 (May 1,                 
          2006), submitted as evidence by petitioners, comports with the              
          finding of the Court in Lyle.  That provision states that the               
          “school or school board is the employing agency of all JROTC                
          personnel” and that the Army will reimburse the school in                   
          accordance with AR 145-2.  According to the regulation, although            
          the Army is restricted in the amount it can reimburse the school            
          or school board, the school or school board is not restricted in            
          the amount it can pay a JROTC instructor.                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007