It is 50 pages
long. This is not the time of year for me to read this in detail.
I am
referring to an IRS Technical Advice Memorandum. A TAM means that a taxpayer is
under examination and the revenue agent has a question. The TAM answers the
question.
This one has
to do with excluding meals as income to employees when the meals are for the “convenience
of the employer.”
I guess I long
ago selected the wrong profession for this to be an issue. The instances have
been few over the years where an employer has regularly brought in dinner
during busy season. I had one employer who would do so on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
but the offset was working until 9 p.m. or later. As I recall, one virtually
needed a papal decree to deviate from their policies, and they had policies
like the Colonel has chicken. At this age and stage, I would not even consider working
for them, but at the time I was young and dumb.
The classic “convenience
of the employer” example is a fireman: you have to be around in case of emergencies.
There are other common reasons:
· To protect employees due to unsafe conditions surrounding the taxpayer’s business premises;
· Because employees cannot secure a meal within a reasonable meal period;
· Because the demands of the employees' job functions allow them to take only a short meal break.
What has exacerbated
the issue is not your job or mine, but the Googles and Microsofts of the world.
For example, Google’s headquarter in Mountain View, California has over 15 cafeterias.
Not to be overshadowed, Microsoft in Redmond, Washington has over two dozen. Why
would one even bother to go to a grocery store?
Not my
world. Not my reality.
The “reasonable
meal period” has generally meant that there are limited dining options nearby.
I have a family member who works at a nuclear facility. I do not know, but I
would expect options thin-out the closer you get to said facility. That
reasonable meal period is likely legit in his case.
The TAM is
presented in question and answer form. Here is one of the answers:
While the availability of meal
delivery is not determinative in every analysis concerning …, especially in
situations where delivery options are limited, meal delivery should be a
consideration in determining whether an employer qualifies under this
regulation and generally when evaluating other business reasons proffered by
employers as support for providing meals for the “convenience of the employer”
under section 119.
So the IRS
is working to incorporate the rising popularity of GrubHub and UberEats into
the taxation of employer-provided meals. Wow, if you practice long enough…
I am not too
worried about it, other than prompting a chuckle. Why? Because here at CTG command-center
we do not provide the occasional lunch because of limited dining opportunities.
Rather we bring-in lunch because of in-house training (as an example), and we
want everyone there.
Think about
it: we give you a sandwich and you get to hear me talk about taxes and watching
paint dry.
I suspect
you would rather just buy your own lunch.
