There Really Is A Free Meal

Gambling and the Law Ž

[ Read Responses | Return to Index | Return HOME ]
[ Previous | Next ]

There Really Is A Free Meal

Posted by I. Nelson Rose on 31 January 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
REMOTE_HOST: 24.95.235.204; REMOTE_ADDR: 24.95.235.204

#52 Casino Executive ŠCopyright 1999, all rights reserved worldwide.

Gambling and the LawŽ is a registered trademark of Professor I. Nelson Rose,

Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA.

There Really Is A Free Meal

The federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that when it comes to

taxes, both casinos and their employees are winners.

The case involved the dual questions of whether casinos could deduct the

cost of free meals they give their employees, and whether those employees

have to pay income taxes on those meals.

The Court has now settled the question, at least for the western United

States, including Nevada. If a casino and its lawyers set up the program

correctly, the casino may deduct 100% of the expenses involved with

supplying its employees with free meals. As a nice corollary, the company

can offer prospective workers the fringe benefit of two free meals every day

they work, without the employees having to report the food as income.

One of the most fundamental rules of the federal income tax system is that

everything any American receives in any way is, theoretically, income that

may be taxed. There obviously have to be lots of exceptions. People would

not put up with paying taxes on personal Christmas and Chanukah gifts.

Fundamental fairness requires that businesses only pay taxes on their

actual income, not their total sales. A grocery store that receives a

dollar by selling a state lottery ticket would quickly go broke if it had to

pay taxes on that dollar, rather than on the few cents it actually gets to

keep.

Any individual or business that makes money has expenses as well.

Policy-makers are constantly struggling with the question of which expenses

should be deductible when calculating income, and which should not.

In theory, if a taxpayer -- say a salesperson -- takes a prospective client

out to lunch, the meal should be considered a legitimate cost of doing

business. Particularly if the sale is made, the salesperson should be able

to deduct the meal expense to figure out how much he or she actually made.

The problem is that any tax deduction can be misused. Is it really a

necessary part of business for executives to have three-martini lunches

every day?

In 1986, Congress became concerned that high-income taxpayers were taking

business deductions for meals and entertainment which were really part of

their personal living expenses. So Congress put a cap on the amount of

these deductions; today only 50% of the costs of business meals and

entertainment may be deducted.

But there are some important exceptions. Some companies supply meals to

their employees because they need to have these workers present at all times

in case of emergencies. Other companies are located so far from even the

nearest restaurant that employees could not get back before their work break

was over.

Congress declared that a company that provides meals to its employees for

its own convenience can deduct 100% of the cost of those meals.

What about other meals and other employees? In 1998 Congress amended the

law so that a company can deduct the cost of all meals given to all its

employees, if more than half of the employees are being fed for the

convenience of the employer.

The recent federal case arose when the IRS decided that the Boyd Gaming

Corporation's casinos were providing employees free meals that were not for

the convenience of the casino. The IRS believed the Stardust, California,

Fremont and Sam's Town were giving free food simply to remain competitive

with other casinos in attracting and keeping good workers.

The IRS also argued that meals, to be deductible, must be linked to an

employee's specific duties. The 9th Circuit found that would be "virtually

impossible to satisfy; only restaurant critics and dieticians could meet

such a test."

Further, the IRS regulations themselves state that meals furnished to

employees who cannot leave the premises because there are insufficient

eating facilities in the vicinity are provided for the "convenience of the

employer." Thus, "we can discern no logical distinction between workers

isolated by geography and those isolated by employer policy."

Boyd required its employees to stay in the casino during the entire eight

hours of their work shifts. Naturally, the company realized that it had to

supply meals. But the IRS argued that there was no good reason for the

"stay-on-premises" policy. The Tax Court agreed.

The 9th Circuit reversed, holding it was not up to government officials "to

second guess Boyd's business judgment." So long as the company had

"adequate evidence of legitimate business reasons" to "support its closed

campus policy," the meals would be 100% deductible.

The IRS argued that employees could eat in restaurants in the casino. It

ignored the fact that the restaurants were reserved for patrons, who might

find uniformed employees ... distracting. "A cocktail waitress, for

example, wears a very short black dress."

Boyd put on evidence showing that many employees handle large amounts of

cash and gaming chips, and that checking workers in and out for meals would

be costly and disruptive.

Boyd's most interesting argument was "that the 'stay-on-premises'

requirement allows it to maintain tight control over its workforce, thereby

reducing the chances of employees succumbing to the distractions and

temptations of the 'festive' Las Vegas atmosphere."

There are not many businesses that would admit that if their employees

visit the competition during their workday, they might not return to work.

[Professor Rose can be reached at his web site: www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com]

END

Responses
(No responses to this message have been posted.)

The Gambling and the Law Ž is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.092606.