Discussion:Firefighter -- Meals while on 24 hr shift

I've looked thru regs for where to deduct as an above line on line 21. Can't seem to locate it...cn you point me to that. Thank you.

Rev. Rul. 56-49, 1956-1 C.B. 152

A fireman is not traveling away from home in the pursuit of his trade or business while performing services at his principal or regular post of duty, even though he works a 24-hour shift during which he must remain at the firehouse overnight and cannot leave his station for meals. The tax or business "home" of a fireman, as in the case of other taxpayers, is held to be his principal or regular post of duty. See Revenue Ruling 54-497, C. B. 1954-2, 75. Furthermore, a fireman who is assigned on different days to different locations within the same city or general area is not "away from home," because a taxpayer's principal or regular post of duty is not limited to a particular building or property, but includes the entire city or general locality in which he customarily carries on his trade or business. See the sixth paragraph in Revenue Ruling 55-109, C. B. 1955-1, 261. Thus, the expenses incurred by a fireman for meals consumed at a firehouse under the circumstances referred to herein are not deductible as traveling or business expenses, but represent nondeductible living expenses. See Jess H. Taylor et al. v. Commissioner, Tax Court Memorandum Opinion entered June 24, 1952.

In Sibla, the 9th Circuit ruled that a firefighter can only deduct the cost of meals if REQUIRED by their employer to participate in a meal plan. Every firefighter that I have had as a client admits that their plans are voluntary.

Do tax preparers get to deduct the cost of ordering pizza because they have to work through lunch and dinner and Easter?

This is such an easy thing for the IRS computers to audit, too. The tax return has their occupation and the 2106 has a field for Meals. However, I am pretty sure the IRS would catch hell if they started picking on firefighters.

And my personal favorite: "I work with a girl who has two kids just like me. She always gets back thousands of dollars. How come I never get that?"

- Rick

"Firefighters required by their employer to pay their share of a common meal fund, even if they did not eat the meal, cauld deduct the amount they paid. If, however, a firefighter's payments into a common meal fund is not a condition of employment, then the expenses is a personal expense."

Milt

I feel that our fireman deserve more tax breaks than the average person because of the many dangerous situations they encounter daily. I wish I could deduct more expenses to assist them but the tax code is as it is and interpreting it can be very tough at time, ergo, we have this forum here. As GL stated, write your Representatives or Senators and have all the firemen & their families write in. Overwhelm them letters.....you could make a difference.

Dar

Sec. 119 is an exclusion of employer provided meals. I believe that an air traffic controller would probably satisfy the convenience of the employer test under Sec. 119; however, in the absence of some sort of payroll withholding or direct payment to your employer, I see no employer provided meals in your situation.

This all got started because of an article in a trade newsletter by a CPA in Ca. and IRS notice 2002-0020. The CPA claims the IRS notice legitimizes his claims. If you have the time or curiousity look at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/02-0020.pdf

The Service’s position on the issue of deducting meals consumed on the employer’s premises was clearly stated in Revenue Ruling 56-49. That position is that no deduction should be allowed for the cost of meals unless they are consumed “away from home” (meaning tax home).

Even in the ultra liberal Ninth Circuit, the court has held that meal expenses (Sibla) are deductible under Sec. 162(a) if the employee is required as a condition of his employment to remain on the business premises and purchase a meal from his employer. I am not sure if you are required as a condition of your employment to purchase a meal from your employer.

Also, under the 119 regulations, if the employer regularly withholds the cost of the meals from the employee’s wages and the meals are provided on the premises of the employer for the convenience of the employer, the employee is entitled to claim an exclusion (not a deduction) for the amount withheld (assuming that the withholding is made without regard to whether the employee accepts the meal).

I've experienced your pain - my younger son is a member of FDNY and cannot believe I will not write off his meals (all the other guys do :)). As noted previously, the payment to a common meal fund must be a condition of employment.

The Court cases cited that ALLOW the meal deduction have special circumstances. Cooper 67 TC 870 and Sibla 68 TC 422 involved LA firefighters. The City required the common meal as a way of helping integrate the department. The City of New Orleans required a common meal and so Matta (TC Memo 1990-356) was allowed a deduction.

But many MORE case do NOT allow a deduction. I'll post a few so you can show your colleagues. Duggan 77 TC 911 - no deduction even though 24 hour shifts. Phillips TC Memo 1986-503 - no deduction even though UNION rules REQUIRED the common meal. Morton TC Memo 1986-132 - no deduction even though there was severe peer pressure to pay into the fund. Another recent case is Swaggler TC Summarry 2004-63 - again no deduction. There are more of these!!!

He has been overly aggressive in his interpretations of tax law.

First, Rev Ruling 55-109 dealt with Armed Forces personnel, so don't be mislead that the paragraph that was posted is a DIRECT quote from that Ruling. Apparently, the poster used that Rev Ruling to make a conclusion about firefighters.

BUT, more important, the poster did not follow the trail after that Ruling was issued by the IRS. Revenue Rulings are often modified, amplified or obsoleted. I agree about possible confusion. :)

Having said that - Rev Ruling 55-109 was modified by Rev Ruling 90-23 which in turn was modified by Rev Ruling 99-7. Rev Ruling 99-7 is the seminal answer by the IRS. I'll paste holding 2 which I believe will establish the veracity of what I posted.

[start] (2) If a taxpayer has one or more regular work locations away from the taxpayer's residence, the taxpayer may deduct daily transportation expenses incurred in going between the taxpayer's residence and a temporary work location in the same trade or business, regardless of the distance. [end]

"Employees are required by the City as a condition of employment to contribute financially to meals in the Fire Station at a charge equal to the value of the meal, irrespective of whether the employee chooses to eat the meal. Employees shall be solely responsible for any financial or tax liability regarding this provision. Accordingly, the City shall be held harmless from any such liability. The City also shall not be responsible for maintaining any records or providing administration regarding this provision."

I read it as a tax write off meeting the condition of employment - but I may be wrong. Tell me, does this sound like I can write his meals off? (after july 1st, of course)

Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

This meal controversy smells of entitlement. I have worked plenty of hours - 16-18 hr days & received no meal "allowance". Whatever you choose to do, you take the good with the bad. And the rules are the same for all. Beanie - seems as if you could take the deduction (after 7/1) - it would help if they took the $$ for meals directly from his pay, maybe I missed this but do they?

They do not deduct directly from his pay, he has to pay for the food out of pocket - after taxes.

Califcpa - could you tell me where I can find sibla v. commr. I am new to this site and don't know where I can find specifics.

Dang tax law is extremely complicated!

And if you read this entire thread, carefully, you'll see that the consensus of the professionals here agree that the only way the deduction might be allowed is if the stipulation of a 'common or organized mess' is in the employment code.

Your statement is that the 3000 firefighter returns you've done DO meet that requirement; the issue in this thread is that most departments don't have that stipulation in writing...and that means the deduction isn't legit.

A bit scary, unless just a coincidence, I'm not paranoid.......they really ARE after me.

7 audits regarding this issue to be exact. And yes i do agree, if the firefighter does not have anything written about the "organized mess" in their code of employment, then the deduction should not be taken. The 3 main fire departments that i work with do have a written organized mess plan. I also have worked with a few smaller deptartments to have it added to the employment code instead of it just being an informal meal fund. How about some of the "professionals" in this thread take the time to try and help these brave firefighters out and have it added to the employment code? I guess that would leave you less time to blog all day and complain about them. Have a nice day :)

Read this Action on Decision 1985-012 re: Sibla CAREFULLY!! In this AOD, the IRS accepts that for cases that are the SAME as Sibla they will allow for a meal deduction. Most fire departments do not have the same rules. Common or traditional practice in the firehouse is not sufficient. It MUST be reuired by the EMPLOYER.

ISSUES:

1. Whether payments made by petitioner for meal expenses in connection with his employment as a fireman are deductible under I.R.C. section 162(a) or excludable under section 119(b)(3). 0162.13-05; 0119.01-00; 0119.02-00.
2. ...

DISCUSSION: Petitioner is a fireman who was required by fire department rules to participate in an organized mess. Participation in the mess by the department consisted of merely providing the basic facilities for the mess. All firemen were required to pay their share of the food used even if they did not eat the meal prepared. Petitioner deducted his meal payments.

...

1. In view of the decision in Belt v. Comissioner, T.C.M. 1984- 167, the service now concedes that section 162(a) may apply to allow the deduction. However, the application of section 162(a) is CONFINED to cases like Belt, Cooper v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 870 (1977), aff'd. sub nom. Sibla v. Commissioner, 611 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980), and the instant case. The Service will continue to argue that section 162(a) does NOT PERMIT a deduction in firemen's meals cases in which the facts are DISTINGUIHABLE from those in Belt, Cooper, and the instant case. See, Banks v. Commissioner, T.C. M. 1981-490; Duggan v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 911(1981); and Alvarado v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1073 (1983).
Thus, the Sevice will concede the exclusion of payments for meals by firemen if the requirements of section 119 (b)(3) are met. However, even if the requirements of section 119(b)(3) are arguably not met, the Service will nevertheless concede the deductibility of the meal payments under section 162(a) in cases FACTUALLY indistinguishable from the instant case, Cooper, and Belt.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Acquiescence. That the Action on Decision approved April 10, 1978 be withdrawn and this action substituted therefore.

Firetax, thanks for the snide comment.

Considering I've been married to a firefighter (retired, after 27 years service) for more than twenty years, am active in the auxilliary which involves getting up at 2:00 am sometimes to deliver food, hot coffee, cold sodas etc when they are fighting fires as well as bi-annual fundraisers for money for needed equipment as well as scholarships for FD related kids going on to college, treasurer for the auxilliary, prepare the Paid Men's Assoc non-profit return pro-bono, do a large percentage of the tax returns for firefighters in the department, AND have advised them as to the wording in their employment contract.... in other words, not exactly just sitting here 'blogging'

Glad I didn't read your comment before the end of tax season, or I might have really been upset.

I just bought an EA practice that prepares a lot of returns for both firefighter and nurses. I have direct information to provide the firefighters to show that their meals are not deductible. However, the nurses I show tend to believe that they are somehow special in this area and can deduct their meals. Many have taken meals on 2106/Sch A for meals eaten at work since they cannot leave the hospital for meal breaks.

Everything that I know says that the meals are not deductible for nurses who are NOT traveling nurses and not working outside their tax home overnight.

Can anyone prove me wrong on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

Firemen generally purchase their food in the morning and then they cook their meals (I see their huge fire trucks in the grocery parking lot all the time).

I'm an EA and I think I may have believed an old "myth". I had a new physician client last year who works 12 hour+ shifts and must eat at the hospital as a condition of her employment and for the convenience of her employer. She said her prior preparer (and all the colleagues preparers) deduct the costs of these meals (I believe she often buys meals for her "group".)

I did not make a note of the research I did into this and I can't find it now -- I thought this would qualify as deductible as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses. Lesson learned to cite any research in my notes!

Now after this discussion of firefighters I think I may have been wrong in deducting this expense.

Your thoughts? Can you direct me to any other discussions/citations pro or con? Thanks!

Back on 10 January 2007, PVVCPA stated:

"This is such an easy thing for the IRS computers to audit, too. The tax return has their occupation and the 2106 has a field for Meals. However, I am pretty sure the IRS would catch hell if they started picking on firefighters."

So if you read into the statement, he feels that the meals are 50% deductible if he is using that line on the 2106. Nobody challenged that statement and am wondering why. The above court cases did not reference code section 274 but 162 which would mean 100% deductible. Am I off base?

I too am working on my first firefighter return. If you do enough reading it appears that if the mess contributions are required as a condition of employment whether or not they actually attend the meal can be a deduction against gross income (Section 119(b)(3))

per Riley2 above...If the firefighter is required to contribute to the firehouse mess fund as a condition of his employment and the funds are in the custody of his employer, then he can claim an above the line exclusion on line 21 or a misc itemized deduction on Sch. A.

I dont know why anyone would choose the misc itemized deduction vs the line 21 and it would appear that it is a 100% deduction not the assumed 50% that you read in other posts or websites. I posted this question yesterday but have not received any confirmation on that.