Boyd Gaming Corporation, f.k.a. The Boyd Group and Subsidiaries - Page 11

                                               - 11 -                                                  
            provided in a facility that normally makes an overall profit, and                          
            that the Congress did not intend for section 274(n)(2)(B) to                               
            apply to meals covered by section 119.  Respondent relies                                  
            primarily on two excerpts from the committee reports to section                            
            274(n)(1).  The first excerpt states that “20 percent of an                                
            otherwise allowable deduction for food and beverages * * * is                              
            disallowed.  Similarly, the cost of a meal furnished by an                                 
            employer to employees on the employer’s premises is subject to                             
            the rule.”  S. Rept. 99-313, at 70 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3)                            
            1, 70; H. Rept. 99-426, at 123 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1,                             
            123.  The second excerpt states that “The bill generally reduces                           
            to 80 percent the amount of any deduction otherwise allowable for                          
            meal expenses, including meals * * * furnished on an employer’s                            
            premises to its employees (whether or not such meals are                                   
            excludable from the employee’s gross income under sec. 119).”                              
            H. Conf. Rept. 99-841, at II-24 to II-25 (1986), 1986-3 C.B.                               
            (Vol. 4) 1, 24-25.  Respondent also relies on the fact that                                
            section 274(e)(1) refers to food and beverages furnished on an                             
            employer’s business premises primarily for its employees.                                  
            Respondent argues that section 274(n)(2) would have referred to                            
            section 274(e)(1), had the Congress intended to except employee                            
            meals from the limitation of section 274(n)(1).                                            
                  We disagree with respondent’s broad reading of section                               
            274(n)(1).  In support of her reading, respondent refers us to                             
            two excerpts of legislative history.  Respondent takes both                                
            excerpts out of their context.  The first excerpt is listed under                          





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