Sutherland Lumber-Southwest, Inc. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          88 T.C. 1562, 1564-1565 (1987), affd. without published opinion             
          851 F.2d 362 (11th Cir. 1988).                                              
               Although section 274(a) is designed generally to prohibit              
          deductions for certain entertainment-related expenses, section              
          274(e)(2) provides that the deduction disallowance provision of             
          section 274(a) will not apply to:                                           
               Expenses treated as compensation.--Expenses for goods,                 
               services, and facilities, to the extent that the                       
               expenses are treated by the taxpayer, with respect to                  
               the recipient of the entertainment, amusement, or                      
               recreation, as compensation to an employee on the                      
               taxpayer’s return of tax under this chapter and as                     
               wages to such employee for purposes of chapter 24                      
               (relating to withholding of income tax at source on                    
               wages).  [Emphasis added.]                                             
          Petitioner argues that the “to the extent” language acts to                 
          except its deduction, as claimed, from the reach of section 274.            
          Conversely, respondent argues that the “to the extent” language             
          acts to limit petitioner’s deduction to the amount includable as            
          income by its employees.                                                    
               Respondent agrees that, but for section 274, petitioner’s              
          claimed deduction would be allowable in full.  In addition,                 
          respondent does not challenge petitioner’s fringe benefit income            
          value calculations under section 61.  Even on the assumption that           
          section 274 applies, if we hold that subsection 274(e)(2) removes           
          petitioner’s deduction from the reach of section 274, then                  









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011