- 72 -
period, we conclude that none of petitioners' employees may
exclude the meals from gross income on account of this factor.
5. Inadequate Eating Facilities
An employer furnishes a meal to an employee for a
substantial noncompensatory business reason if the employee could
not otherwise secure proper meals within a reasonable meal
period. Sec. 1.119-1(a)(2)(ii)(c), Income Tax Regs. Such may be
the case, for example, when there are insufficient eating
facilities in the vicinity of the employer's premises because the
employee works at a remote or isolated locale. See id.; see also
Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247 (1981) (workers on
offshore oil rigs); Stone v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 1021 (1959)
(construction workers in Alaska); Olkjer v. Commissioner, 32 T.C.
464 (1959) (construction workers in Greenland). See generally
Rev. Rul. 72-385, 1972-2 C.B. 536 (fishermen on schooner); Rev.
Rul. 71-267, 1971-1 C.B. 37 (Navy personnel assigned to offshore
islands).
Petitioners contend that most of their employees qualify
under section 119 because there are insufficient eating
facilities near each Property to allow their employees to obtain
proper meals during their breaks. Petitioners also contend that
they prohibit their employees from leaving the premises during
their shifts, except in case of dire emergency, and that
petitioners prohibit their nonmanagerial employees from eating in
the public restaurants located on the Properties. Petitioners
elicited testimony from Mr. Thompson to the effect that no one,
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011