- 6 -
The issue at hand is one of first impression. We must
decide whether petitioners can deduct the full cost of the meals
that they provided to their employees on their premises, or,
alternatively, whether section 274(n)(1) limits their deduction
to 80 percent of the meals’ cost. Petitioners argue for the
former, stating that section 274(n)(1) does not limit their
deduction because their employee meals are: (1) De minimis
fringe benefits under sections 132(e) and 274(n)(2)(B), or
(2) goods sold in a bona fide transaction for an adequate and
full consideration in money or money's worth under section
274(e)(8). Respondent argues for the latter, stating that none
of the exceptions to section 274(n)(1) apply to the facts at hand
because petitioners provided the meals to their employees without
charge.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom factual issues.
Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992); Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). The concept of summary
judgment is specifically recognized by this Court and is deeply
ingrained in our procedural rules. Rule 121(a) provides that
either party may move for summary judgment in its favor upon any
or all parts of the legal issues in controversy. When either
party makes such a motion, the opposing party must file "An
opposing written response, with or without supporting affidavits,
* * * within such period as the Court may direct." Rule 121(b).
A decision on the merits of a taxpayer's claim will then be
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