Adams v. United States

Last updated
Adams v. United States
Court United States Court of Claims
Full case nameFaneuil Adams, Jr. and Joan P. Adams v. The United States
DecidedOctober 18, 1978 (1978-10-18)
Citation(s)585 F.2d 1060 (Ct. Cl. 1978)
Court membership
Judges sitting Arnold Wilson Cowen, Oscar Hirsh Davis, Marion T. Bennett
Case opinions
Per curiam
Keywords

Adams v. United States, 585 F.2d 1060 (Ct. Cl. 1978) [1] was a case in which the United States Court of Claims held that the fair rental value of the residence furnished to the taxpayer by his employer was excludable from taxpayer's gross income. The three statutory requisites for exclusion were met pursuant to Section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code. [2] Three requirements for lodging under §119: (1) acceptance of residence was a condition of employment, (2) for the convenience of the employer, and (3) was on the business premises.

Contents

Facts

Adams was president of Sekiyu Kabushiki Kaisha (Sekiyu), a Tokyo-based Japanese corporation which was wholly owned by Mobil Oil Corporation in Japan. Pursuant to the company's policy, Mobil provided Mr. and Mrs. Adams (plaintiffs in this case) with a residence for 1970 and 1971. Effectiveness of a president of a company in Japan is influenced by the social standing and regard accorded to him. If the president of Sekiyu had not resided in a residence equivalent to the type provided to the plaintiff, it would appear that he would have been unofficially downgraded and slighted by the business community and his effectiveness for Sekiyu correspondingly impaired. Sekiyu, therefore, provided such a house to plaintiff and required him to reside there as a matter of company policy. Adams worked in the house in evenings and weekends and held meetings there for mixed business and social purposes.

Issue

Whether the fair market value of a Japanese residence furnished plaintiffs by the employer is excludable from their gross income under §119 of Internal Revenue Code.

Holding

Fair market value of the residence is excludable from gross income

Analysis

The Court acknowledged that under the statutory definition of § 61(a), [3] gross income includes compensation for services amongst all other income from whatever source derived. Section 1.61-2(d)(10 of Treasury Regulations states, "If services are paid for other than in money, the fair market value of the property or services taken in payment must be included in income." [4] The Court presumed that if the lodging furnished to plaintiff was compensation to him, the fair rental value of the lodging would be includable in his gross income unless excludable under another provision of the Code. So, because of Section 119, the fair rental value of the residence supplied to plaintiffs by Sekiyu in 1970 and 1971 is excludable from his gross income.

“Condition of Employment” Test

This test is met if "due to the nature of the employer's business, a certain type of residence for the employee is required and it would not be reasonable to suppose that the employee would normally have available such housing for the use of his employer." [5]

“Convenience of the Employer” Test

This test is satisfied where there is a "direct nexus between the housing furnished the employee and the business interests of the employer served thereby." [5]

“On the Business Premises” Test

This test is at best elusive and incapable of generating any hard and fast line. This question is largely a factual one requiring a common sense approach.

Where, as here, (1) the residence was built and owned by the employer, (2) it was designed, in part, to accommodate the business activities of the employer, (3) the employee was required to live in the residence, (4) there were many business activities for the employee to perform after normal working hours in his home because of the extensive nature of the employer's business and the high-ranking status of the employee, (5) the employee did perform business activities in the residence, and (6) the residence served an important business function of the employer, then the residence in question is a part of the business premises of the employer.

Conclusion

Some forms of compensation, although typically includible in gross income under § 61(a)(1), are excluded from gross income by operation of a specific statutory provision. Most of these exclusions are set forth in §§ 101-139 of Internal Revenue Code. Section 119(a) provides for exclusion of meals and lodging furnished to employees or their spouses or dependents if certain conditions are met:

MealsLodging
furnished by employerfurnished by employer
for convenience of employerfor convenience of employer
on business premises of employeron business premises of employer
employee required to accept as a condition of employment

Related Research Articles

Taxation in the United States Taxes are imposed in the United States at each of levels; taxes on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2010, taxes collected by federal, state, and municipal governments amounted to 24.8% of GDP. In the OECD, only Chile and Mexico are taxed less as a share of their GDP.

Tax exemption is the reduction or removal of a liability to make a compulsory payment that would otherwise be imposed by a ruling power upon persons, property, income, or transactions. Tax-exempt status may provide complete relief from taxes, reduced rates, or tax on only a portion of items. Examples include exemption of charitable organizations from property taxes and income taxes, veterans, and certain cross-border or multi-jurisdictional scenarios.

Employee benefits Non-wage compensation provided to employees in addition to normal wages or salaries

Employee benefits and benefits in kind include various types of non-wage compensation provided to employees in addition to their normal wages or salaries. Instances where an employee exchanges (cash) wages for some other form of benefit is generally referred to as a "salary packaging" or "salary exchange" arrangement. In most countries, most kinds of employee benefits are taxable to at least some degree. Examples of these benefits include: housing furnished or not, with or without free utilities; group insurance ; disability income protection; retirement benefits; daycare; tuition reimbursement; sick leave; vacation ; social security; profit sharing; employer student loan contributions; conveyancing; long service leave; domestic help (servants); and other specialized benefits.

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), formally the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code (USC). It is organized topically, into subtitles and sections, covering income tax in the United States, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes; as well as procedure and administration. Its implementing agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

A gift tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of ownership of property during the giver's life. The United States Internal Revenue Service says that a gift is "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full compensation is not received in return."

Compensation of employees (CE) is a statistical term used in national accounts, balance of payments statistics and sometimes in corporate accounts as well. It refers basically to the total gross (pre-tax) wages paid by employers to employees for work done in an accounting period, such as a quarter or a year.

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," the starting point for determining which items of income are taxable for federal income tax purposes in the United States. Section 61 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived [. .. ]". The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress intended to express its full power to tax incomes to the extent that such taxation is permitted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States and under the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

In the United States tax law, an above-the-line deduction is a deduction that the Internal Revenue Service allows a taxpayer to subtract from his or her gross income in arriving at "adjusted gross income" for the taxable year. These deductions are set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 62. A taxpayer's gross income minus his or her above-the-line deductions is equal to the adjusted gross income. Because these deductions are taken before adjusted gross income is calculated, they are designated "above-the-line." Thus, those deductions allowed in computing "taxable income" under section 63 of the IRC are "below the line deductions". Above-the-line deductions may be more valuable to high income taxpayers than below-the-line deductions.

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to taxation of meals furnished by an employer. In this case, the Court interpreted Internal Revenue Code §119(a)-(b)(4) and (d) and Treas. Reg. §1.119-1.

<i>United States v. Gotcher</i>

United States v. Gotcher, 401 F.2d 118, is a tax case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Internal Revenue Code Section 132(a) provides eight types of fringe benefits that are excluded from gross income. These include fringe benefits which qualify as a (1) no-additional-cost service, (2) qualified employee discount, (3) working condition fringe, (4) de minimis fringe, (5) qualified transportation fringe, (6) qualified moving expense reimbursement, (7) qualified retirement planning services, or (8) qualified military base realignment and closure fringe.

An employer in the United States may provide transportation benefits to their employees that are tax free up to a certain limit. Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code section 132(a), the qualified transportation benefits are one of the eight types of statutory employee benefits that are excluded from gross income in calculating federal income tax. The qualified transportation benefits are transit passes, vanpooling, bicycling, and parking associated with these things.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

The foreign housing exclusion goes hand-in-hand with the foreign earned income exclusion. According to section 911(a) of the federal tax code, a qualified individual under either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test will be able to exclude from the gross income the housing amount in a foreign country provided for by the employer. Note that "provided for by the employer" does not require that the employer actually procure the housing. If the housing is paid for out of wages paid by the employer, this will meet the test. However, housing expenses in excess of the wages or earnings from self-employment would not qualify.

Benaglia v. Commissioner 36 B.T.A. 838 (1937) is a United States income tax case heard in the U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, discussing when an employee can exclude employer-provided benefits from his income. The Board held that a taxpayer employee may exclude the value of food and lodging received from his employer, if he receives it solely for the convenience of his employer and as a necessary incident of the proper performance of his duty. The meals-and-lodging exclusion has been formalized as §119 in the tax code.

Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956), was an income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.

The clergy housing allowance is an allowance paid to ordained ministers in Canada and the United States.

Employer compensation in the United States refers to the cash compensation and benefits that an employee receives in exchange for the service they perform for their employer. Approximately 93% of the working population in the United States are employees earning a salary or wage.

References

  1. ↑ Adams v. United States, 585F.2d1060 (Ct. Cl.1978).
  2. ↑ 26 U.S.C.   § 119
  3. ↑ 26 U.S.C.   § 61
  4. ↑ 26 C.F.R. 1.61-2
  5. 1 2 Adams v. United States, 585 F.2d at 1062

Text of Adams v. United States, 585 F.2d 1060 (Ct. Cl. 1978) is available from:  Leagle    Google Scholar  

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.