- 41 -41
the per diem amounts at issue.
Respondent disagrees with petitioner’s reading of Beech
Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, supra. According to respondent,
Beech Trucking Co. requires the Court to hold in the instant case
that the section 274(n)(1) limitation applies to the person who
paid or incurred, or actually bore,35 the food or beverage ex-
penses in question and that that person is TLC.
The parties in Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, supra,
agreed that the truck drivers in question were employees not
subject to the section 274(n)(1) limitation because such truck
drivers qualified for the exception to that limitation provided
by section 274(e)(3)(A) (section 274(e)(3)(A) exception). The
parties in Beech Trucking Co. also agreed that the section
274(n)(1) limitation applied to the employer of those truck
drivers. It was in the context of those agreements that the
Court stated in Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 440,
443:
with respect to meal and entertainment expenses that an
employee pays or incurs and that are reimbursed by the
employer, the section 274(n) limitation applies either
to the employee (as the “person who makes the expendi-
ture”) or to the employer (as the “person who actually
bears the expense”). Sec. 1.274-2(f)(2)(iv)(a), Income
Tax Regs.
* * * * * * *
35Respondent accords the words “paid or incurred” the same
meaning as the words “actually bore”.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011