- 15 -
of the person who performed such services”. Sec. 83(h). These
examples, the legislative history, and the above analysis
convince us that Congress did not intend a limitation in section
274(e)(2).
As a final comment, we note that while respondent is
critical of the mismatch of income and expense that could occur
under petitioner’s interpretation, respondent does not comment on
the mismatch possible under his scenario if the costs associated
with providing the flight are less than the SIFL value dictated
by the Code. Moreover, respondent does acknowledge that the
interaction of sections 61 and 162 in the benefits area already
permits the possibility for mismatched income and deductions.
There is no indication that Congress was attempting to fix any
such possible mismatch by enacting section 274. To the contrary,
the legislative history seems to indicate otherwise.
For the reasons outlined above, we hold that section
274(e)(2) acts to except the deductions in controversy from the
effect of section 274, and, accordingly, petitioner’s deduction
for operation of the aircraft is not limited to the value
reportable by its employees. In view of the foregoing, it is
unnecessary to decide the general applicability of section 274(a)
to the expenses of company-owned aircraft used for personal
travel.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011