- 11 -
employees living in company-owned housing 1 mile from where they
worked did not constitute living on the business premises of
their employer).
In Hargrove v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-159, the Court
held that taxpayers who were employed by an American defense
contractor at Pine Gap and who were required, as a condition of
their employment, to reside in assigned housing in Alice Springs
were not entitled to exclude the value of their lodging because
such lodging was not on the business premises of the employer.
Although the taxpayers in the Hargrove case were employees
of TRW Overseas, Inc. and not Raytheon, we regard that
distinction as one without a difference. However, because the
“camp” provisions of section 119(c) were not expressly discussed
in that case, we shall consider that section.8
Section 119(c)(1) provides that if “an individual * * * is
furnished lodging in a camp located in a foreign country by or on
behalf of his employer, such camp shall be considered to be part
8 We are aware of no case discussing the “camp” provisions
of sec. 119(c) other than Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1983-479 n.3, which case involved taxable years preceding the
effective date of sec. 119(c), and Abeyta v. Commissioner, T.C.
Summary Opinion 2005-44. In the latter case, the Court held that
a software engineer who was employed by an American defense
contractor at Pine Gap and who was required, as a condition of
his employment, to reside in assigned housing in Alice Springs
was not entitled to exclude the value of his lodging because,
inter alia, such lodging was not in a camp. But see sec.
7463(b), restricting the treatment of a small tax case as a
precedent for any other case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007