- 32 -
America’s business premises as required by section 119(a).11 See
sec. 1.119-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. Second, Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe
received cash reimbursement for their grocery expenses, not in-
kind meals. By its terms, section 119(a) covers meals furnished
by the employer and not cash reimbursements. See Commissioner v.
Kowalski, supra; Tougher v. Commissioner, supra; Harrison v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-211; Koven v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1979-213; McDowell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-72.
Petitioners concede on brief that Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe
purchased the groceries and were reimbursed by Holland America,
but they contend that purchasing the groceries was a “separate
transaction”. Petitioners argue that a corporation can act only
through its agents and that Mrs. Dobbe, acting as an agent of
Holland America, purchased the groceries, prepared the meals, and
provided the meals to the officers of the corporation.
Petitioners contend that this sort of “separate transaction”
amounts to receiving in-kind meals and, therefore, qualifies for
the exclusion under section 119(a).
11Cf. Boyd Gaming Corp. v. Commissioner, 177 F.3d at 1099
(employer’s eating facilities were located on the business
premises); Harrison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-211 (“We
have found as a fact that the meals in question were served and
consumed on the farm, which was the business premises of the
employer, HFL.”); McDowell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-72
(“There is no question that the meals and lodging were furnished
on the business premises of the employer-corporation, the
ranch.”).
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011