Decisions — Controlled by the Army

Thanks for sharing!
Image source: www.wpclipart.com

Image source: www.wpclipart.com

 

As a citizen of the US, you’re taxed on your worldwide income “from whatever source derived”…unless an exclusion applies. Foreign earned income (internal revenue code section 911) is one of those exclusions.

To qualify for the section 911 foreign income exclusion, you have to meet two requirements. First, your tax home must be in a foreign country. Second, you must either be a “bona fide resident” of one or more foreign countries or be physically present in such countries during at least 330 days in a 12-month period.

There’s also an exclusion from the exclusion. When you’re paid by the US as an employee, those payments are not considered foreign earned income.

In T.C. Memo. 2015-248 (Striker), the question of whether the taxpayer could claim the foreign earned income exclusion depended on whether he was employed by the US.

The taxpayer was a social scientist with a PhD in his field. He wanted to use his skills to assist the NATO mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, and he applied to the US Army for a position. (NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a political and military alliance of countries that have joined together to provide security to all members.) The US Army deployed him to a NATO post in Afghanistan where a Canadian general was the base commander.

During 2010 and 2011, the taxpayer performed services as a civilian and served in units led by NATO commanders. The US Army decided where the taxpayer was to be deployed and specified the dates, times, and other terms of his departures to and from Afghanistan. The taxpayer did not know where he would be assigned or what his specific “special mission” would be.

In Afghanistan, the taxpayer acted as a liaison between the NATO command and the local people. The taxpayer regularly participated in NATO sponsored training and workshops, some of which were mandatory. He wore a NATO civilian name tag and a NATO badge. The team he worked with was composed of citizens from various NATO countries. The team leader conducted performance evaluations but had no authority to discipline the taxpayer or discharge him from his post.

The NATO base commander exercised ultimate operational control over the taxpayer’s work. While the base commander could not terminate the taxpayer from his position with the US Army, he could refuse the taxpayer access to the base. This would have the effect of removing the taxpayer from the regional command and rendering him unable to perform his work. If this were to happen, the taxpayer would have to fly back to the US and either apply for another deployment with the Army or return home.

The US Army paid the taxpayer on the basis of government pay scales. The Army provided standard Department of Defense fringe benefits, including health and retirement benefits. The Army furnished a biweekly “Civilian Leave and Earnings Statement” showing the taxpayer’s gross pay and deductions, reported his wages to the IRS on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and withheld from his paychecks the required federal income and employment taxes.

The taxpayer did not maintain a permanent residence in the US during the years he was deployed. He listed his mother’s residence as his address on his tax returns for 2010 and 2011 and claimed the foreign earned income exclusion for those years. He listed his occupation as “Defense Contractor” and his employer as “Defense Finance & Accounting Services.” He stated his employer was a “US company” and listed his employer’s US address as a location in Cleveland, Ohio, and his employer’s foreign address as a location in Afghanistan.

The IRS agreed the taxpayer met the two requirements for foreign income exclusion. However, the IRS disallowed the foreign earned income exclusion, saying the taxpayer was an employee of the US Government because the Army had the right to control his work and the right to discharge him.

The taxpayer argued that he was actually working for NATO because NATO officers supervised his activities on a daily basis, and that the NATO commander, by excluding him from the base, could effectively bring his mission to an end.

WHAT WOULD YOU DECIDE?

Make your selection, then hover your mouse
over the link beneath “The Court’s Decision”

For the or for the

THE COURT’S DECISION

For a full explanation, hover your mouse over the link

***

Note: Taxing Lessons provides a summarized version of sometimes lengthy court decisions. The full case may include facts and issues not presented here. Please use the link provided in the post to read the entire case.

This information should not be considered legal, investment or tax advice. Taxing Lessons and Top Drawer Ink Corp. do not provide legal, investment or tax advice. Always consult your legal, investment and/or tax advisor regarding your personal situation.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Form matters Image source: ©Stevies ID 1869706 Dreamstime Stock Photos   Currently, the IRS website has about 900 forms that can be downloaded for filing purposes. Using the right form can make a difference when you're seeking a refund as an innocent spouse (Palomares) or trying to convince the IRS t...
Decisions — Power Image source: wpclipart.com/   As a tax preparer, you're familiar with Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative. You ask clients to sign Form 2848 to give you authorization to do what's typically limited to the taxpayer, such as receiving and inspecting confidential...
Decisions — The basis of the matter Image source: ©Julien Tromeur Dreamstime Stock Photos   Your basis in any partnership is the amount you have invested, and that's especially true for tax law. As a general rule, your ability to claim losses and other deductions as a partner depends on your basis in the partnership. In...
Decisions– Your estimate may vary Image source: openclipart.org   According to an old expression, the only difference between an estimate and a guesstimate is the confidence of the person providing the answer. When you're calculating your federal estimated income tax payments, confidence in the answer is a plus because p...
Sorry, wrong answer :(
Right answer!

For the IRS.

The US involvement in Afghanistan was conducted as part of a coalition. Like other NATO members, the US participates in NATO-led missions by volunteering troops and civilian personnel. The fact that the US participates in NATO-led operations by volunteering its personnel indicates that the US exercises control over those who are thus contributed.

The taxpayer has not shown that his position upon deployment to Afghanistan differed in any material way from the position occupied by hundreds of thousands of other Army military and civilian employees who have been deployed or seconded to NATO and other allied commands worldwide.

In determining whether his wages are excludable under section 911(b)(1)(B)(ii), it is not dispositive that he was “stationed overseas in an allied command” rather than stationed overseas in a US Army base.

The taxpayer has not carried his burden of proving that he was an employee of NATO rather than the Army during 2010 and 2011. As an employee of the US during those years, he is subject to the exception set forth in section 911(b)(1)(B)(ii) and is not entitled to a foreign earned income exclusion.

Posted in Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions Tagged with: ,