- 57 -
Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 49 (1949); Robinson v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116, 124-125 (1994), affd. in part, revd.
in part on another issue, and remanded 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir.
1995). Given the broad sweep of inclusions vis-a-vis the narrow
construction of exclusions, it naturally follows that an
accession to wealth is prima facie includable in gross income
under section 61(a) unless an exclusion in sections 1 through
1563 clearly directs otherwise. United States v. Burke, supra at
248 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment); United States v.
Centennial Sav. Bank FSB, supra at 1519; Commissioner v.
Jacobson, supra at 49; Robinson v. Commissioner, supra at 125;
see Commissioner v. Kowalski, supra at 83.
Petitioners argue that substantially all of the meals are
excludable from the gross income of the recipient employees under
the exclusion of section 119. From the text of section 119, we
understand that the gross income of an employee who meets a
two-prong test does not include the value of a meal received from
his or her employer. Under the first prong, the meal must be
furnished by the employer on its business premises. Under the
second prong, the meal must be furnished to the employee for the
convenience of the employer. See also sec. 1.119-1(a)(1), Income
Tax Regs. Since the parties do not dispute the first prong, we
limit our focus to the second prong, deciding only the question
of whether each employer at issue provided each meal to each of
its employees for the convenience of the employer.
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011