Yesterday, the full House passed its tax reform proposal, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), on a party-line vote, 227-205. In addition to the headline changes to the corporate and individual tax systems, the bill would make numerous changes to various fringe benefit exclusions, employer deductions for fringe
Continue Reading Tax Reform Proposals Advance in the House and Senate
Section 119
Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Part II – Deduction Disallowances for Entertainment Expenses and Certain Fringe Benefits
By S. Michael Chittenden on
Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee released the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (the “Bill”), a bill that, if enacted, would represent the most substantial overhaul of the U.S. tax code in decades. Section 3307 of the Bill makes several changes to the deduction limitations under section 274 related to meals and entertainment expenses. The Bill also expands the reach of the deduction limitations to disallow deductions for de minimis fringe benefits excluded from income under Code section 132(e), unless the employer includes such amounts in the employee’s taxable income. With respect to tax-exempt entities, section 3308 of the Bill would treat funds used to provide employees transportation fringe benefits and on-premises gyms and other athletic facilities as unrelated business taxable income.
Total Disallowance of Deductions for Entertainment Expenses. Under Code section 274(a), a taxpayer may not deduct expenses for entertainment, amusement, or recreation (“entertainment expenses”), unless the taxpayer establishes that the item was directly related to the active conduct of the taxpayer’s business, subject to a number of exceptions in Code section 274(e) (e.g., reimbursed expenses; expenses treated as compensation to (or included in the gross income of) the recipient; recreational, social, and similar activities primarily for the benefit of employees other than highly compensated employees; entertainment sold to customers). If the taxpayer establishes that the entertainment expenses were directly related to the active conduct of its trade or business, section 274(n) limits the deduction to 50 percent of expenses relating to entertainment, subject to a number of exceptions, many of which are the same exceptions that apply to the 100 percent disallowance under Code section 274(a) (e.g., reimbursed expenses; expenses treated as compensation to (or included in the gross income of) the recipient; recreational, social, and similar activities primarily for the benefit of employees other than highly compensated employees; entertainment sold to customer).
The Bill would amend section 274(a) to eliminate the exception for entertainment expenses directly related to the active conduct of the taxpayer’s business. Accordingly, deductions for entertainment expenses would be fully disallowed unless one of the exceptions under Code section 274(e) applies. The Bill would also make changes to some of the exceptions under Code section 274(e), described below.
Continue Reading Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Part II – Deduction Disallowances for Entertainment Expenses and Certain Fringe Benefits
Tax Court Expands Section 119 Exclusion in Boston Bruins Decision
In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Tax Court ruled yesterday that “the business premises of the employer” can include an off-premises facility leased by the employer when its employees are on the road. The decision in Jacobs v. Commissioner addressed whether the employer (in this case, the professional hockey team, the Boston Bruins) was entitled to a full deduction for the meals provided to the team and staff while on the road for away games. The debate arose after the IRS challenged the full deduction and asserted that the employer should have applied the 50% deduction disallowance applicable to meals by section 274(n) of the Code.
Under section 162 of the Code, an employer may deduct all ordinary and necessary business expenses. However, in recognition that the cost of meals is inherently personal, the Code limits the deductions for most business meal expenses to 50% of the actual expense under section 274(n), subject to certain exceptions. The exception at issue in Jacobs allows an employer to deduct the full cost of meals that qualify as de minimis fringe benefits under section 132(e) of the Code. In general, this includes occasional group meals, but would not typically include frequently scheduled meals for employees travelling away from home. (For this purpose, home is the employee’s tax home, which is typically the general area around the employee’s principal place of employment.) However, under Treasury Regulation § 1.132-7, an employer-operated eating facility may qualify as a de minimis fringe benefit if, on an annual basis, the revenue from the facility is at least as much as the direct operating cost of the facility. In other words, an employer may subsidize the cost of food provided in a company cafeteria, provided the cafeteria covers its own direct costs on an annual basis and meets other criteria (owned or leased by the employer, operated by the employer, located on or near the business premises of the employer, and provides meals immediately before, during, or immediately after an employee’s workday).
The Bruins’ owners argued that they were entitled to a full deduction because the banquet rooms in which employees were provided free meals qualified as an employer-operated eating facility. That may leave some of our readers wondering, “How can a facility that is free have revenue that covers its direct operating cost?” The key to answering that question lies in the magic found in the interface of sections 132(e)(2)(B) and section 119(b)(4) of the Code. Under section 132(e)(2)(B), an employee is deemed to have paid an amount for the meal equal to the direct operating cost attributable to the meal if the value of the meal is excludable from the employee’s income under section 119 (meals furnished for the “convenience of the employer”) for purposes of determining whether an employer-operated eating facility covers its direct operating cost. In turn, section 119(b)(4) provides that if more than half of the employees who are furnished meals for the convenience of the employer, all of the employees are treated as having been provided for the convenience of the employer. Working together, if more than half the employees are provided meals for the convenience of the employer at an employer-operated eating facility, the employer may treat the eating facility as a de minimis fringe benefit, and deduct the full cost of such facility.
Continue Reading Tax Court Expands Section 119 Exclusion in Boston Bruins Decision