§119 — Meals or lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer
102 citing cases
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §119
There shall be excluded from gross income of an employee the value of any meals or lodging furnished to him, his spouse, or any of his dependents by or on behalf of his employer for the convenience of the employer, but only if—
in the case of meals, the meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer, or
in the case of lodging, the employee is required to accept such lodging on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employment.
For purposes of subsection (a)—
In determining whether meals or lodging are furnished for the convenience of the employer, the provisions of an employment contract or of a State statute fixing terms of employment shall not be determinative of whether the meals or lodging are intended as compensation.
In determining whether meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer, the fact that a charge is made for such meals, and the fact that the employee may accept or decline such meals, shall not be taken into account.
If—
an employee is required to pay on a periodic basis a fixed charge for his meals, and
such meals are furnished by the employer for the convenience of the employer,
there shall be excluded from the employee’s gross income an amount equal to such fixed charge.
Subparagraph (A) shall apply—
whether the employee pays the fixed charge out of his stated compensation or out of his own funds, and
only if the employee is required to make the payment whether he accepts or declines the meals.
All meals furnished on the business premises of an employer to such employer’s employees shall be treated as furnished for the convenience of the employer if, without regard to this paragraph, more than half of the employees to whom such meals are furnished on such premises are furnished such meals for the convenience of the employer.
In the case of an individual who is furnished lodging in a camp located in a foreign country by or on behalf of his employer, such camp shall be considered to be part of the business premises of the employer.
For purposes of this section, a camp constitutes lodging which is—
provided by or on behalf of the employer for the convenience of the employer because the place at which such individual renders services is in a remote area where satisfactory housing is not available on the open market,
located, as near as practicable, in the vicinity of the place at which such individual renders services, and
furnished in a common area (or enclave) which is not available to the public and which normally accommodates 10 or more employees.
In the case of an employee of an educational institution, gross income shall not include the value of qualified campus lodging furnished to such employee during the taxable year.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent of the excess of—
the lesser of—
5 percent of the appraised value of the qualified campus lodging, or
the average of the rentals paid by individuals (other than employees or students of the educational institution) during such calendar year for lodging provided by the educational institution which is comparable to the qualified campus lodging provided to the employee, over
the rent paid by the employee for the qualified campus lodging during such calendar year.
The appraised value under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be determined as of the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, or, in the case of a rental period not greater than 1 year, at any time during the calendar year in which such period begins.
For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified campus lodging” means lodging to which subsection (a) does not apply and which is—
located on, or in the proximity of, a campus of the educational institution, and
furnished to the employee, his spouse, and any of his dependents by or on behalf of such institution for use as a residence.
For purposes of this subsection—
The term “educational institution” means—
an institution described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (or an entity organized under State law and composed of public institutions so described), or
an academic health center.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “academic health center” means an entity—
which is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii),
which receives (during the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins) payments under subsection (d)(5)(B) or (h) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act (relating to graduate medical education), and
which has as one of its principal purposes or functions the providing and teaching of basic and clinical medical science and research with the entity’s own faculty.
Treasury Regulations
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1Meals and lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer
(a) Meals—(1) In general. The value of meals furnished to an employee by his employer shall be excluded from the employee's gross income if two tests are met: (i) The meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer, and (ii) the meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer. The question of whether meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer is one of fact to be determined by analysis of all the facts and circumstances in each case. If the tests described in subdivisions (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph are met, the exclusion shall apply irrespective of whether under an employment contract or a statute fixing the terms of employment such meals are furnished as compensation.
(2) Meals furnished without a charge. (i) Meals furnished by an employer without charge to the employee will be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer if such meals are furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer. If an employer furnishes meals as a means of providing additional compensation to his employee (and not for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer), the meals so furnished will not be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer. Conversely, if the employer furnishes meals to his employee for a substantial noncompensatory business reason, the meals so furnished will be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer, even though such meals are also furnished for a compensatory reason. In determining the reason of an employer for furnishing meals, the mere declaration that meals are furnished for a noncompensatory business reason is not sufficient to prove that meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer, but such determination will be based upon an examination of all the surrounding facts and circumstances. In subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, there are set forth some of the substantial noncompensatory business reasons which occur frequently and which justify the conclusion that meals furnished for such a reason are furnished for the convenience of the employer. In subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, there are set forth some of the business reasons which are considered to be compensatory and which, in the absence of a substantial noncompensatory business reason, justify the conclusion that meals furnished for such a reason are not furnished for the convenience of the employer. Generally, meals furnished before or after the working hours of the employee will not be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer, but see subdivision (ii) (d) and (f) of this subparagraph for some exceptions to this general rule. Meals furnished on nonworking days do not qualify for the exclusion under section 119. If the employee is required to occupy living quarters on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employment (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the exclusion applies to the value of any meal furnished without charge to the employee on such premises.
(ii)(a) Meals will be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer when the meals are furnished to the employee during his working hours to have the employee available for emergency call during his meal period. In order to demonstrate that meals are furnished to the employee to have the employee available for emergency call during the meal period, it must be shown that emergencies have actually occurred, or can reasonably be expected to occur, in the employer's business which have resulted, or will result, in the employer calling on the employee to perform his job during his meal period.
(b) Meals will be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer when the meals are furnished to the employee during his working hours because the employer's business is such that the employee must be restricted to a short meal period, such as 30 or 45 minutes, and because the employee could not be expected to eat elsewhere in such a short meal period. For example, meals may qualify under this subdivision when the employer is engaged in a business in which the peak work load occurs during the normal lunch hours. However, meals cannot qualify under this subdivision (b) when the reason for restricting the time of the meal period is so that the employee can be let off earlier in the day.
(c) Meals will be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer when the meals are furnished to the employee during his working hours because the employee could not otherwise secure proper meals within a reasonable meal period. For example, meals may qualify under this subdivision (c) when there are insufficient eating facilities in the vicinity of the employer's premises.
(d) A meal furnished to a restaurant employee or other food service employee for each meal period in which the employee works will be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer, irrespective of whether the meal is furnished during, immediately before, or immediately after the working hours of the employee.
(e) If the employer furnishes meals to employees at a place of business and the reason for furnishing the meals to each of substantially all of the employees who are furnished the meals is a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer, the meals furnished to each other employee will also be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer.
(f) If an employer would have furnished a meal to an employee during his working hours for a substantial noncompensatory business reason, a meal furnished to such an employee immediately after his working hours because his duties prevented him from obtaining a meal during his working hours will be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason.
(iii) Meals will be regarded as furnished for a compensatory business reason of the employer when the meals are furnished to the employee to promote the morale or goodwill of the employee, or to attract prospective employees.
(3) Meals furnished with a charge. (i) If an employer provides meals which an employee may or may not purchase, the meals will not be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer. Thus, meals for which a charge is made by the employer will not be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer if the employee has a choice of accepting the meals and paying for them or of not paying for them and providing his meals in another manner.
(ii) If an employer furnishes an employee meals for which the employee is charged an unvarying amount (for example, by subtraction from his stated compensation) irrespective of whether he accepts the meals, the amount of such flat charge made by the employer for such meals is not, as such, part of the compensation includible in the gross income of the employee; whether the value of the meals so furnished is excludable under section 119 is determined by applying the rules of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph. If meals furnished for an unvarying amount are not furnished for the convenience of the employer in accordance with the rules of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the employee shall include in gross income the value of the meals regardless of whether the value exceeds or is less than the amount charged for such meals. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the value of the meals may be deemed to be equal to the amount charged for them.
(b) Lodging. The value of lodging furnished to an employee by the employer shall be excluded from the employee's gross income if three tests are met:
(1) The lodging is furnished on the business premises of the employer,
(2) The lodging is furnished for the convenience of the employer, and
(3) The employee is required to accept such lodging as a condition of his employment.
The requirement of subparagraph (3) of this paragraph that the employee is required to accept such lodging as a condition of his employment means that he be required to accept the lodging in order to enable him properly to perform the duties of his employment. Lodging will be regarded as furnished to enable the employee properly to perform the duties of his employment when, for example, the lodging is furnished because the employee is required to be available for duty at all times or because the employee could not perform the services required of him unless he is furnished such lodging. If the tests described in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph are met, the exclusion shall apply irrespective of whether a charge is made, or whether, under an employment contract or statute fixing the terms of employment, such lodging is furnished as compensation. If the employer furnishes the employee lodging for which the employee is charged an unvarying amount irrespective of whether he accepts the lodging, the amount of the charge made by the employer for such lodging is not, as such, part of the compensation includible in the gross income of the employee; whether the value of the lodging is excludable from gross income under section 119 is determined by applying the other rules of this paragraph. If the tests described in subparagraph (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph are not met, the employee shall include in gross income the value of the lodging regardless of whether it exceeds or is less than the amount charged. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the value of the lodging may be deemed to be equal to the amount charged.
(c) Business premises of the employer—(1) In general. For purposes of this section, the term “business premises of the employer” generally means the place of employment of the employee. For example, meals and lodging furnished in the employer's home to a domestic servant would constitute meals and lodging furnished on the business premises of the employer. Similarly, meals furnished to cowhands while herding their employer's cattle on leased land would be regarded as furnished on the business premises of the employer.
(2) Certain camps. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1981, in the case of an individual who is furnished lodging by or on behalf of his employer in a camp (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section) in a foreign country (as defined in § 1.911-2(h)), the camp shall be considered to be part of the business premises of the employer.
(d) Camp defined—(1) In general. For the purposes of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a camp is lodging that is all of the following:
(i) Provided by or on behalf of the employer for the convenience of the employer because the place at which the employee renders services is in a remote area where satisfactory housing is not available to the employee on the open market within a reasonable commuting distance of that place;
(ii) Located, as near as practicable, in the vicinity of the place at which the employee renders services; and
(iii) Furnished in a common area or enclave which is not available to the general public for lodging or accommodations and which normally accommodates ten or more employees.
(2) Satisfactory housing. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, facts and circumstances that may be relevant in determining whether housing available to the employee is satisfactory include, but are not limited to, the size and condition of living space and the availability and quality of utilities such as water, sewers or other waste disposal facilities, electricity, or heat. The general environment in which housing is located (e.g., climate, prevalence of insects, etc.) does not of itself make housing unsatisfactory. The general environment is relevant, however, if housing is inadequate to protect the occupants from environmental conditions. The individual employee's income level is not relevant in determining whether housing is satisfactory; it may, however, be relevant in determining whether satisfactory housing is available to the employee (see paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) of this section).
(3) Availability of satisfactory housing—(i) Facts and circumstances. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, facts and circumstances to be considered in determining whether satisfactory housing is available to the employee on the open market include but are not limited to:
(A) The number of housing units available on the open market in relation to the number of housing units required for the employer's employees;
(B) The cost of housing available on the open market;
(C) The quality of housing available on the open market; and
(D) The presence of warfare or civil insurrection within the area where housing would be available which would subject U.S. citizens to unusual risk of personal harm or property loss.
(ii) Presumptions. Satisfactory housing will generally be considered to be unavailable to the employee on the open market if either of the following conditions is satisfied:
(A) The foreign government requires the employer to provide housing for its employees other than housing available on the open market; or
(B) An unrelated person awarding work to the employer requires that the employer's employees occupy housing specified by such unrelated person.
The condition of either paragraph (d)(3)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section is not satisfied if the requirement described therein and imposed either by a foreign government or unrelated person applies primarily to U.S. employers and not to a significant number of third country employers or applies primarily to employers of U.S. employees and not to a significant number of employers of third country employees.
(4) Reasonable commuting distance. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, in determining whether a commuting distance is reasonable, the accessibility of the place at which the employee renders services due to geographic factors, the quality of the roads, the customarily available transportation, and the usual travel time (at the time of day such travel would be required) to the place at which the employee renders services shall be taken into account.
(5) Common area or enclave. A cluster of housing units does not satisfy paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section if it is adjacent to or surrounded by substantially similar housing available to the general public. Two or more common areas or enclaves that house employees who work on the same project (for example, a highway project) are considered to be one common area or enclave in determining whether they normally accommodate ten or more employees.
(e) Rules. The exclusion provided by section 119 applies only to meals and lodging furnished in kind by or on behalf of an employer to his employee. If the employee has an option to receive additional compensation in lieu of meals or lodging in kind, the value of such meals and lodging is not excludable from gross income under section 119. However, the mere fact that an employee, at his option, may decline to accept meals tendered in kind will not of itself require inclusion of the value thereof in gross income. Cash allowances for meals or lodging received by an employee are includible in gross income to the extent that such allowances constitute compensation.
(f) Examples. The provisions of section 119 may be illustrated by the following examples:
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(a)Meals—(1) In general.
Meals—(1) In general. The value of meals furnished to an employee by his employer shall be excluded from the employee's gross income if two tests are met: (i) The meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer, and (ii) the meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer. The question of whether meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer is one of fact to be determined by analysis of all the facts and circumstances in each case. If the tests described in subdivisions (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph are met, the exclusion shall apply irrespective of whether under an employment contract or a statute fixing the terms of employment such meals are furnished as compensation.
(2) Meals furnished without a charge. (i) Meals furnished by an employer without charge to the employee will be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer if such meals are furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer. If an employer furnishes meals as a means of providing additional compensation to his employee (and not for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer), the meals so furnished will not be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer. Conversely, if the employer furnishes meals to his employee for a substantial noncompensatory business reason, the meals so furnished will be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer, even though such meals are also furnished for a compensatory reason. In determining the reason of an employer for furnishing meals, the mere declaration that meals are furnished for a noncompensatory business reason is not sufficient to prove that meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer, but such determination will be based upon an examination of all the surrounding facts and circumstances. In subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, there are set forth some of the substantial noncompensatory business reasons which occur frequently and which justify the conclusion that meals furnished for such a reason are furnished for the convenience of the employer. In subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, there are set forth some of the business reasons which are considered to be compensatory and which, in the absence of a substantial noncompensatory business reason, justify the conclusion that meals furnished for such a reason are not furnished for the convenience of the employer. Generally, meals furnished before or after the working hours of the employee will not be regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer, but see subdivision (ii) (d) and (f) of this subparagraph for some exceptions to this general rule. Meals furnished on nonworking days do not qualify for the exclusion under section 119. If the employee is required to occupy living quarters on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employment (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the exclusion applies to the value of any meal furnished without charge to the employee on such premises.
(ii)(a) Meals will be regarded as furnished for a substantial noncompensatory business reason of the employer when the meals are furnished to the employee during his working hours to have the employee available for emergency call during his meal period. In order to demonstrate that meals are furnished to the employee to have the employee available for emergency call during the meal period, it must be shown that emergencies have actually occurred, or can reasonably be expected to occur, in the employer's business which have resulted, or will result, in the employer calling on the employee to perform his job during his meal period.
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(b)Lodging.
Lodging. The value of lodging furnished to an employee by the employer shall be excluded from the employee's gross income if three tests are met:
(1) The lodging is furnished on the business premises of the employer,
(2) The lodging is furnished for the convenience of the employer, and
(3) The employee is required to accept such lodging as a condition of his employment.
The requirement of subparagraph (3) of this paragraph that the employee is required to accept such lodging as a condition of his employment means that he be required to accept the lodging in order to enable him properly to perform the duties of his employment. Lodging will be regarded as furnished to enable the employee properly to perform the duties of his employment when, for example, the lodging is furnished because the employee is required to be available for duty at all times or because the employee could not perform the services required of him unless he is furnished such lodging. If the tests described in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph are met, the exclusion shall apply irrespective of whether a charge is made, or whether, under an employment contract or statute fixing the terms of employment, such lodging is furnished as compensation. If the employer furnishes the employee lodging for which the employee is charged an unvarying amount irrespective of whether he accepts the lodging, the amount of the charge made by the employer for such lodging is not, as such, part of the compensation includible in the gross income of the employee; whether the value of the lodging is excludable from gross income under section 119 is determined by applying the other rules of this paragraph. If the tests described in subparagraph (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph are not met, the employee shall include in gross income the value of the lodging regardless of whether it exceeds or is less than the amount charged. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the value of the lodging may be deemed to be equal to the amount charged.
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(c)Business premises of the employer—(1) In general.
Business premises of the employer—(1) In general. For purposes of this section, the term “business premises of the employer” generally means the place of employment of the employee. For example, meals and lodging furnished in the employer's home to a domestic servant would constitute meals and lodging furnished on the business premises of the employer. Similarly, meals furnished to cowhands while herding their employer's cattle on leased land would be regarded as furnished on the business premises of the employer.
(2) Certain camps. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1981, in the case of an individual who is furnished lodging by or on behalf of his employer in a camp (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section) in a foreign country (as defined in § 1.911-2(h)), the camp shall be considered to be part of the business premises of the employer.
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(d)Camp defined—(1) In general.
Camp defined—(1) In general. For the purposes of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a camp is lodging that is all of the following:
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(e)Rules.
Rules. The exclusion provided by section 119 applies only to meals and lodging furnished in kind by or on behalf of an employer to his employee. If the employee has an option to receive additional compensation in lieu of meals or lodging in kind, the value of such meals and lodging is not excludable from gross income under section 119. However, the mere fact that an employee, at his option, may decline to accept meals tendered in kind will not of itself require inclusion of the value thereof in gross income. Cash allowances for meals or lodging received by an employee are includible in gross income to the extent that such allowances constitute compensation.
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(f)Examples.
Examples. The provisions of section 119 may be illustrated by the following examples:
-
Treas. Reg. §1.119-1(i)§1.119-1(i)
Provided by or on behalf of the employer for the convenience of the employer because the place at which the employee renders services is in a remote area where satisfactory housing is not available to the employee on the open market within a reasonable commuting distance of that place;
(ii) Located, as near as practicable, in the vicinity of the place at which the employee renders services; and
(iii) Furnished in a common area or enclave which is not available to the general public for lodging or accommodations and which normally accommodates ten or more employees.
(2) Satisfactory housing. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, facts and circumstances that may be relevant in determining whether housing available to the employee is satisfactory include, but are not limited to, the size and condition of living space and the availability and quality of utilities such as water, sewers or other waste disposal facilities, electricity, or heat. The general environment in which housing is located (e.g., climate, prevalence of insects, etc.) does not of itself make housing unsatisfactory. The general environment is relevant, however, if housing is inadequate to protect the occupants from environmental conditions. The individual employee's income level is not relevant in determining whether housing is satisfactory; it may, however, be relevant in determining whether satisfactory housing is available to the employee (see paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) of this section).
(3) Availability of satisfactory housing—(i) Facts and circumstances. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, facts and circumstances to be considered in determining whether satisfactory housing is available to the employee on the open market include but are not limited to:
(A) The number of housing units available on the open market in relation to the number of housing units required for the employer's employees;
(B) The cost of housing available on the open market;
(C) The quality of housing available on the open market; and
(D) The presence of warfare or civil insurrection within the area where housing would be available which would subject U.S. citizens to unusual risk of personal harm or property loss.
(ii) Presumptions. Satisfactory housing will generally be considered to be unavailable to the employee on the open market if either of the following conditions is satisfied:
(A) The foreign government requires the employer to provide housing for its employees other than housing available on the open market; or
(B) An unrelated person awarding work to the employer requires that the employer's employees occupy housing specified by such unrelated person.
The condition of either paragraph (d)(3)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section is not satisfied if the requirement described therein and imposed either by a foreign government or unrelated person applies primarily to U.S. employers and not to a significant number of third country employers or applies primarily to employers of U.S. employees and not to a significant number of employers of third country employees.
(4) Reasonable commuting distance. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, in determining whether a commuting distance is reasonable, the accessibility of the place at which the employee renders services due to geographic factors, the quality of the roads, the customarily available transportation, and the usual travel time (at the time of day such travel would be required) to the place at which the employee renders services shall be taken into account.
(5) Common area or enclave. A cluster of housing units does not satisfy paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section if it is adjacent to or surrounded by substantially similar housing available to the general public. Two or more common areas or enclaves that house employees who work on the same project (for example, a highway project) are considered to be one common area or enclave in determining whether they normally accommodate ten or more employees.
102 Citing Cases
s 2016, 2017, and 2018 (relevant years). After our Opinion in Smith v. Commissioner, No. 5191- 20, 159 T.C. (Aug. 25, 2022), and a Stipulation of Settled Issues filed by the parties, only one issue remains for decision. We must decide whether, under section 119,1 Mr. Smith may exclude from gross income the value of lodging his employer provided during the relevant years. In a Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Smith argues that the value of the lodging may be excluded. The Commissioner takes the o
Petitioner argues that her case is distinguishable from Hargrove and Middleton in that, unlike the taxpayers in those cases, she performed some work-related activities at home.9 Like the taxpayer in Smith, petitioner has not established how much work she did at home.
§ 119 (stating that, in general, executive agreements made pursuant to a treaty of the United States “may be coextensive with the treaty with regard to [their] scope and subject-matter” and have “the same effect and validity as the treaty”). 6 17 U.S.T. at 2238. Pine Gap II contains a substantially identical provision. See Pine Gap II, art. X(1),
Santos did not allege facts that would have warranted the section 119 exclusion.
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
PPI maintained an office elsewhere. Petitioners argue that their son used a room exclusively for business purposes. They did not provide sufficient information relating to the size ofthe room allegedly used for business purposes and instead deducted 100% ofthe expenses relating to the house. Although the son performed services to renovate
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
PPI maintained an office elsewhere. Petitioners argue that their son used a room exclusively for business purposes. They did not provide sufficient information relating to the size ofthe room allegedly used for business purposes and instead deducted 100% ofthe expenses relating to the house. Although the son performed services to renovate
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
PPI maintained an office elsewhere. Petitioners argue that their son used a room exclusively for business purposes. They did not provide sufficient information relating to the size ofthe room allegedly used for business purposes and instead deducted 100% ofthe expenses relating to the house. Although the son performed services to renovate
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
PPI maintained an office elsewhere. Petitioners argue that their son used a room exclusively for business purposes. They did not provide sufficient information relating to the size ofthe room allegedly used for business purposes and instead deducted 100% ofthe expenses relating to the house. Although the son performed services to renovate
PPI maintained an office elsewhere. Petitioners argue that their son used a room exclusively for business purposes. They did not provide sufficient information relating to the size ofthe room allegedly used for business purposes and instead deducted 100% ofthe expenses relating to the house. Although the son performed services to renovate
ave used a dwelling unit for personal purposes for any day or part ofthat day on which the dwelling unit is used (1) for personal purposes by the taxpayer or by a - 10 - [*10] member ofthe family, including a lineal descendant, or (2) by any individual (except an employee with respect to whose use section 119 applies) unless for that day the dwelling unit is rented for a rental which is a fair rental under the facts and circumstances.
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
8 (2002); Elliotts Inc., 716 F.2d at 1247 ("Ifthe bulk ofthe corporation's earnings are being paid out in the form ofcompensation, so that the corporate profits, after payment ofthe compensation, do not represent a reasonable return on the shareholder's equity in the corporation, then an independent shareholderwould probably not approve
Accordingly, we hold that the away city hotels constituted part ofthe Bruins' business premises for the years in issue.
77, 81-82 (1977) (whether cashpayments designated as meal allowances to state police troopers are excludable under section 119); Taggi v.
77, 81-82 (1977) (whether cash payments designated as meal allowances to state police troopers are excludable under section 119); Taggi v.
119(A) (West 2008). Because creditors can attach transferredproperties under Oklahoma law, we find that petitioner's interests in the transferred properties are "property" or a "right[] to property" under sections 6321 and 6331. See Drye; 528 U.S. at 58 (holding that a disclaimed inheritance is "property" oi. a "right[] topproperty" under sect
* I - 8 - Section 119 excludes from an employee' s gross income the va-lue sof lodging furnished to him by his employer if three « conditions are met: (1). The lodging is.furnished for,the convenience of the employer; (2) the employee is required to accept the lodging as a condition of his employment; and (3) the lodging is on the-business premises of the employer. eLindeman v. Commissioner, supra at 613; sec. 1.119-1(b), Income Tax Regs. "The threshold requirement for section 119 is that the e
A narrow interpretation of section 107 might work to their disadvantage.
However, in addition to the parsonage allowance under section 107, the Code also includes section 119 (which excludes lodging on the employer’s premises for the employer’s convenience) and section 162(a)(2) (which allows a deduction for traveling expenses “while away from home”).
17 In effect , petitioner is asking the Court to overrule Hargrove .
In his motion, respondent moves for a summary adjudication in his favor on the substantive issue presented by this case; namely, whether petitioner is entitled under section 119 to exclude from gross income the value of lodging provided to him by his employer during 2000 and 2001.
were liable for a $13,482 deficiency and a $2,284 accuracy-related penalty. After concessions,4 there are three issues for decision. The first issue is whether petitioners may exclude the costs of lodging provided by their employer from income under section 119. We hold that they may not. The second issue is whether Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove and Mr. and Mrs. Breeding are entitled to exclude certain allowances under section 912. We hold that they are not. The third issue is whether Mr. and Mrs. Hargr
were liable for a $13,482 deficiency and a $2,284 accuracy-related penalty. After concessions,4 there are three issues for decision. The first issue is whether petitioners may exclude the costs of lodging provided by their employer from income under section 119. We hold that they may not. The second issue is whether Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove and Mr. and Mrs. Breeding are entitled to exclude certain allowances under section 912. We hold that they are not. The third issue is whether Mr. and Mrs. Hargr
were liable for a $13,482 deficiency and a $2,284 accuracy-related penalty. After concessions,4 there are three issues for decision. The first issue is whether petitioners may exclude the costs of lodging provided by their employer from income under section 119. (cid:16)042We hold that they may not. The second issue is whether Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove and Mr. and Mrs. Breeding are entitled to exclude certain allowances under section 912. We hold that they are not. The third issue is whether Mr. and
We hold that they are not.
Consequently, petitioners assert that the food and lodging expenses are employer-provided “meals and lodging”, the costs for which are excluded from the Hubers’ income under section 119 and deductible by Waterfall Farms.
Consequently, petitioners assert that the food and lodging expenses are employer-provided “meals and lodging”, the costs for which are excluded from the Schmidts’ income under section 119 and deductible by Hillside Dairy.
Consequently, petitioners assert that the food and lodging expenses are employer-provided “meals and lodging”, the costs for which are excluded from the Weeldreyers’ income under section 119 and deductible by Dreyer Farms.
Tschetter’s income under section 119 and deductible by Wolf Creek Farm.
Consequently, petitioners assert that the food and lodging expenses are employer-provided “meals and lodging”, the costs for which are excluded from the Hubers’ income under section 119 and deductible by Waterfall Farms.
- 72 - Section 119 of the bills provided that these amendments “shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Reform Act to which such amendment relates.” On June 15, 1987, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released its Description of the Technical Corrections Act of 1987 (H.R. 2636 and S. 1350) (JCS-15-87), June 15, 1987. At pages 2
Section 119 of the bills provided that these amendments “shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Reform Act to which such amendment relates.” On June 15, 1987, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released its Description of the Technical Corrections Act of 1987 (H.R. 2636 and S. 1350) (JCS-1587), June 15, 1987. At 25 and 2
t that he lived there. In support of his argument, petitioner cites four Tax Court cases.22 In each cited case, the taxpayer was seeking an exclusion from gross income under section 61 for either lodging or meals provided by his employer pursuant to section 119. Under section 119(a)(2), the value of lodging furnished to an employee is excluded from the employee’s gross income if “the employee is required to accept such lodging on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employ
The value of lodging and meals that an employer furnishes to an employee is an item of income that must be included in the employee’s gross income but for the application of an exclusionary provision such as section 119 (meals and lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer).
Dobbe are not entitled to exclude the reimbursement for groceries from their income under section 119, they must include the entire reimbursement in their income as a dividend.
The value of lodging and meals that an employer furnishes to an employee is an item of income that must be included in the employee’s gross income but for the application of an exclusionary provision such as section 119 (meals and lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer).
al use of the house as a residence for the entire taxable years at issue. Discussion Generally, a taxpayer may not deduct expenses incurred from the rental use of a personal residence or any portion thereof. 2We decline to address the application of sec. 119 to petitioners, as this issue was not raised by either party anywhere in the record. - 6 - Sec. 280A(a). If the taxpayer rents out his dwelling unit, deductions are allowed only to the extent the gross income derived from renting the propert
food and beverages are a de minimis fringe benefit under section 274(n)(2), which, in turn, requires that petitioners provide the food and beverages to each of substantially all of their employees for the "convenience of the - 3 - employer" under section 119.1 We hold herein that petitioners do not provide the food and beverages to each of substantially all of their employees for the convenience of the employer, and, hence, that petitioners' deductions are limited by section 274(n)(1) because t
Unlike respondent, we do not read the legislative history to foreclose the complete deduction of employee meals in 100 percent of the cases.11 Petitioners’ deduction for their employee meals would not be limited by section 274(n)(1), for example, if section 119 allows all of petitioners’ employees to exclude the value of the meals from their gross income.
In determing whether living accommodations provided to a corporate employee constitute property used in a trade or business for purposes of section 167, this Court has taken into account the requirements of section 119: (1) The living accommodations are furnished on the business premises of the employer; (2) they are furnished for the convenience of the employer; and (3) the employee is required to accept such living accommodations as a condition of his employment.
he parties focus on the fifth prong; i.e., the revenue/operating cost test. For purposes of this test, an employer may disregard the cost and revenue for any employee meal that the employer reasonably determines is excludable from gross income under section 119. Sec. 1.132-7(a)(2), Income Tax Regs. Section 119(a)(1) allows an employee to exclude from income the value of any meals furnished by an employer for the employer’s convenience and on the employer’s premises. Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434