- 12 -
employer, and (3) the employee is required to accept such lodging
as a condition of employment. Sec. 119(a). Failure to establish
any one of these criteria precludes application of section 119.
The “convenience of employer” and “condition of employment”
tests are essentially the same. Tyler v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1982-557. Both tests require a “direct nexus between the
lodging furnished and the asserted business interests of the
employer served thereby.” McDonald v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 223,
230 (1976). An employee has not met the tests by simply
establishing that his or her employer required the employee to
accept lodging as a requisite of employment. The “condition of
employment test requires that the lodging be more integrally
related to the various facets of an employee’s position”. Id. at
232.
The lodging will meet the tests if the employee is required
to accept the lodging in order to enable him properly to perform
the duties of employment. Sec. 1.119-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
Lodging will be regarded as furnished to enable the employee
properly to perform the duties of his employment when, for
example, the lodging is furnished because the employee is
required to be available for duty at all times or because the
employee could not perform the services required of him unless he
is furnished such lodging. Id.
The evidence presented at trial establishes that petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011