Scribd
Upload
124 views1 page

Benaglia V CIR Digest

The petitioner received a salary as well as free room and board for working as a hotel manager in Hawaii. The IRS counted the room and board as taxable income, but the petitioner argued it was a necessary part of his job. The court reversed in favor of the petitioner, finding that residence in the hotel was required by his employer, not as a form of compensation. However, the dissenting opinion noted that the petitioner had negotiated the free room and board and was not actually required to live at both hotels he managed.

Uploaded by

KT
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views1 page

Benaglia V CIR Digest

The petitioner received a salary as well as free room and board for working as a hotel manager in Hawaii. The IRS counted the room and board as taxable income, but the petitioner argued it was a necessary part of his job. The court reversed in favor of the petitioner, finding that residence in the hotel was required by his employer, not as a form of compensation. However, the dissenting opinion noted that the petitioner had negotiated the free room and board and was not actually required to live at both hotels he managed.

Uploaded by

KT
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Benaglia v.

Commissioner, 36
B.T.A. 838 (1937)
Nov 11, 2014 by Vahid Dejwakh

Facts

and Procedural History

Petitioner is manager of hotels in Hawaii, for which he receives both a salary and free room and board. The IRS Commissioner
includes the room and board that he and his wife receive as part of his taxable income. Petitioner argues he has to live in the
hotel room as a necessary part of his job as manager of the hotel, and that it should not be counted as constituting part of his
salary.

Issue(s)
Should petitioner's receipt of a room and board from his employer be counted as taxable income when petitioner is living there
at the request of his employer?

Holding and Dissent(s)


Reversed in favor of petitioner. Evidence from both the employer and employee was that residence in the hotel was a necessary
part of the job. Corporations books carried no accounting for the petitioners meals, rooms, or service. Analogizes case to 1)
Jones v. United States, where the value of military quarters was not included in the taxable income of an Army officer, and to 2)
the English case of Tennant v. Smith, H.L. (1892), where a bank employee was required to live in quarters located in the bank
building, the value of which was not included in his taxable income. Here, because the meal and room was supplied to petitioner
merely as a convenience to the hotels, they should not be included in taxable income.
DISSENT: During the negotiations for employment, the petitioner made sure to mention the free room and board. Distinguish
this case from Jones v. US, because here the employment was a matter of private contract, while in Jones, the compensation
was fixed and subject to military law. Petitioners constant presence here was not actually needed, since records show he was
responsible for two hotels and did not have a residence at both, and he was also absent from Honolulu several times. Even if the
employer required his residence in the hotel, petitioner still benefited from it.

Analysis

and Discussion

The employer, in giving the room benefit to employee, has a purpose other than to compensate employee (i.e. a responsibility
to be available to fix hotel problems) > convenience of employer

You might also like