Matthew v. Commissioner

38 T.C. 417, 1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 116
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 27, 1962
DocketDocket Nos. 86447, 88480, 88939
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 38 T.C. 417 (Matthew v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthew v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 417, 1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 116 (tax 1962).

Opinion

Atkins, Judge:

The respondent determined deficiencies in income tax of the petitioners for the taxable years and in the amounts as follows:

[[Image here]]

The question common to each of these consolidated cases is whether the petitioner was a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries during the years in question with the result that his compensation is excludible from gross income pursuant to section 911(a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The petitioner Hill also alleges error of the respondent in disallowing certain claimed exemptions.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and the stipulations are incorporated herein by this reference.

All three petitioners are citizens of the United States and filed their income tax returns for the years involved with the district director of internal revenue, Jacksonville, Florida. During the years in question they were employed at various sites in the Bahama Islands (Grand Bahama, Eleuthera, San Salvador, and Mayaguana) and on Antigua and Ascension Islands, by the Down Range Missile Division of Pan American World Airways, Inc., under circumstances hereinafter described.

Prior to 1950 the United States Government established at Cape Canaveral, Florida, a site for the development of a long range missile program. The responsibility for the development of this program devolved upon the United States Air Force.

In 1950 an agreement was entered into between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the concurrence of the government of the Bahama Islands, providing for a guided missile flight testing range to extend through the Bahama Islands and the waters adjacent thereto, and to be used by both governments. The agreement was effective for a period of 25 years and thereafter until 1 year from the day on which either government should give notice to the other of its intention to terminate. The United Kingdom agreed, among other things, to provide such sites in the Bahama Islands as might be necessary for the purpose of the operation of the flight testing range, so long as the agreement remained in force.

Among other things, the above agreement provided that the immigration laws of the Bahama Islands should not operate to prevent admission into the islands of any United States national employed by or under a contract with the Government of the United States in connection with the flight testing range; that such nationals so employed in the islands, or their wives or minor children, should not be liable to pay income tax in the islands, or any poll tax, or tax on ownership or use of property within a site; that the United States should have the right to establish military post offices on the sites for use of the civilian personnel, including contractors and their employees; that no customs duties or other taxes on goods should be imposed by the Bahama Islands upon the personal belongings or household effects of contractors and their employees, nationals of the United States, employed in connection with the flight testing range, and that no export tax should be charged in the event of reshipment thereof from the Bahama Islands; and that with respect to security offenses, either on or off the site, committed by a United States national not subject to United States military or naval law, the United States, should have exclusive jurisdiction under certain circumstances, and that under certain circumstances the United States and the Bahama Islands should have concurrent jurisdiction over all other offenses committed inside the sites, but that otherwise the jurisdiction of the civil courts of the Bahama Islands should not be affected.1

Subsequently other agreements were executed between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain providing for the extension of the flight testing range to include Antigua and Ascension Islands, such agreements being substantially the same as the above-described agreement. The United States also entered into similar agreements with Brazil and the Dominican Republic.

Thereafter missile-tracking stations were constructed on sites over the 5,000-mile range extending from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to Ascension Island, including bases upon the islands of Grand Bahama, Eleuthera, San Salvador, Mayaguana, Antigua, and Ascension. Each of these was established as an auxiliary Air Force base under the command of an Air Force oiflcer, and flew both the American and the British flags at the same level.

In 1953 the United States Air Force entered into a cost plus fixed fee contract with Pan American World Airways, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Pan American, under which Pan American undertook to furnish the services and materials necessary for the management, operation, and maintenance, under the direction and authority of the Air Force, of the missile test range facilities installed by the Air Force at the various bases at Cape Canaveral and nearby Patrick Air Force Base (headquarters of the Air Force Missile Test Center), and downrange. It also provided that the contractor would be responsible for the compliance, by all contractor personnel, with the provisions of the international agreements. The Air Force agreed to furnish air transport facilities for the transportation of Pan American supplies and personnel to the island bases. The contract was, by its terms, for a period of 1 year, but from time to time it was extended until 1956 when another similar contract was entered into between the same parties, which in turn was extended periodically to the present time.

At each of the bases above referred to there was a base manager who was a Pan American employee and who was directly in charge of the Pan American personnel on such base. Pan American employees did not take orders from the Air Force officer in command of the base. It was agreed between the Air Force and Pan American that Air Force base regulations would not be applicable to Pan American except as the latter might agree.

Each of the downrange bases included, in addition to structures for technical purposes, quarters for personnel, a subsistence or dining room building, a supply building, a vehicle maintenance building, a power building, a laundry building, a post exchange, a recreation building, and various facilities for recreation such as tennis, basketball, baseball, and swimming. The buildings were, in general, constructed of wood with cement asbestos siding and cement floors covered by asphalt or vinyl tile. The quarters for personnel were generally of the barracks variety — one being of the bay type with common bath and toilet facilities and accommodating from 40 to 50 men, and the other being comprised of about fifteen 2-man rooms with ad] oining toilet facilities. The quarters were provided by Pan American to its employees free of charge.

United States nationals employed by Pan American at the downrange base were permitted to use the military post offices at the same postal rates applicable to mail service within the territorial limits of the United States, and were permitted to use the post exchanges.

Food, prepared and served by Pan American cooks, was provided for the Pan American employees in cafeteria-style dining halls located on the bases, at no cost to the employees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nahacky v. Commissioner
1967 T.C. Memo. 128 (U.S. Tax Court, 1967)
Adams v. Commissioner
46 T.C. 352 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Boyd v. Commissioner
46 T.C. 252 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Benfer v. Commissioner
45 T.C. 277 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Brueck v. United States
228 F. Supp. 112 (N.D. Indiana, 1963)
Matthew v. Commissioner
38 T.C. 417 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 T.C. 417, 1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-v-commissioner-tax-1962.