- 2 -
Thomas P. Marinis, Jr. and J. Barclay Collins III, for
petitioners.
Paul L. Dixon, for respondent.
OPINION
LARO, Judge: These consolidated cases are before the Court
on cross-motions for partial summary judgment.1 Respondent moves
for partial summary judgment in her favor, arguing that section
274(n)(1) limits petitioners’ deductions for the cost of “free”
food and beverages that they provided to their employees on
petitioners’ business premises.2 Petitioners object to
respondent’s motion, arguing that a genuine issue of fact exists
as to the applicability of an exception to section 274(n)(1);
namely, whether the food and beverages are a de minimis fringe
benefit under section 274(n)(2)(B). Petitioners also move for
partial summary judgment in their favor, arguing that section
274(n)(1) does not apply because petitioners "sold * * * [the
food and beverages to their employees] in a bona fide transaction
for an adequate [and full] consideration in money or money's
worth".3 See sec. 274(e)(8), (n)(2)(A). Respondent replied to
1 On Nov. 7, 1995, the Court granted the unopposed motion of
respondent to consolidate the two cases for purposes of trial,
briefing, and opinion.
2 Respondent supports her motion with only the pleadings.
3 Petitioners’ cross-motion is supported by the affidavit of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011