i. 119: excludes meals provided for the employer’s convenience, however, they must be on the employer’s premises, t/f no dice
ii. 162(a): allows all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, but it must be while away from home, t/f no dice
iii. Even assuming it was necessary for Moss’s firm to meet daily to coordinate the work of the firm and lunch was the most convenient time, it doesn’t follow that the expense of the lunch was a necessary business expense. The members of the firm had to eat somewhere, and the place they picked was close by and cheap. They don’t claim that they incurred any greater expense than they normally would have had there been no lunch meetings. The situation might have been different if circumstances were such that they had to eat at a disagreeable restaurant or one that was vastly more expensive than what they normally would have selected.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Tax Law Cases and are similar to what happened in the case Moss v. Commissioner (1985) ?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.