- 34 -
agreed the lodging was provided on the employer’s premises.
These cases provided little or no insight as to whether the
grocery reimbursement should be excluded from Mr. and Mrs.
Dobbe’s income under section 119(a) and, thus, do not inform our
analysis.
In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe did not receive in-kind
meals. Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe received cash reimbursement for all
grocery expenses dating back to January 1989. Although the
corporate policy required Holland America to “pay for the
officers meals”, it paid grocery reimbursement instead. The
groceries were consumed by anyone dining in the residence,
including Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe’s children. The Dobbe family
purchased and consumed the groceries as any other family might
have done. Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe, however, took advantage of the
tax laws to obtain nontaxable reimbursement from their
corporation for the entire cost of their daily food consumption.
Like the taxpayers in Simpson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-
223, “petitioners want the Government to subsidize their daily
food consumption.” Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe are not entitled to such a
benefit. See sec. 262(a). We hold that Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe are
not entitled to exclude the cash reimbursement for groceries from
their income under section 119(a).
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