- 58 -
Whether an employer provides a meal to an employee for the
employer's convenience rests primarily on whether the meal is
provided to the employee for a substantial noncompensatory
business reason of the employer. See sec. 1.119-1(a)(2)(i) and
(ii)(e), Income Tax Regs. Such a determination is factual, Jacob
v. United States, 493 F.2d 1294, 1297 (3d Cir. 1974); Olkjer v.
Commissioner, 32 T.C. 464, 468 (1959); sec. 1.119-1(a)(1), Income
Tax Regs., and petitioners bear the burden of proof, Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Caratan v.
Commissioner, 442 F.2d 606, 608 (9th Cir. 1971), revg. 52 T.C.
960 (1969); American Pipe & Steel Corp. v. Commissioner, 243 F.2d
125, 126-127 (9th Cir. 1957), affg. 25 T.C. 351 (1955); Olkjer v.
Commissioner, supra at 468. A substantial noncompensatory
business reason requires a business nexus under which the
"employee must accept * * * [the] meals * * * in order properly
to perform his duties." Commissioner v. Kowalski, supra at 93
(quoting S. Rept. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 190 (1954)); see also
Van Rosen v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 834, 838 (1951). That the
employer may characterize the meal as noncompensatory, or that
the employer intends that the employee receive the meal without
tax consequences, is of no relevance to the application of
section 119. Commissioner v. Kowalski, supra at 88-95. The same
is true with respect to whether the employee could perform his or
her job absent the meal. A meal need not be indispensable to an
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011