Discussion:Police person deduction for meals & entertainment each day on duty
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Police person deduction for meals & entertainment each day on duty
Tinley tax (talk|edits) said: | 26 February 2007 |
| I had a client several years ago that showed me an article from a national police organization that said that there was a tax court ruling saying a police person could deduct $5 per day for each day that they were on duty.
I can’t find the article any where. I was wondering if any one else is aware of any concrete information.. Also, I was wondering if this was updated. | |
Tinley tax (talk|edits) said: | 26 February 2007 |
| The $5 was supposed to cover the cost of their lunches or dinner's. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 26 February 2007 |
| Kevin, isn't street money the same as "WAM" or "Walking Around Money?" Dontcha just love these urban legends? And if I recall there is this case where tax professionals are permitted an allowance for Tums, Pepcid or Nexium depending on the severity of their clients. | |
| 26 February 2007 | |
| Yes, Scotch is ordinary and necessary this time of year. | |
| 26 February 2007 | |
| The $5 was supposed to cover the cost of their lunches or dinner's. So, you are saying that the rest of the world is also entitled to a $5 a day deduction, because they all have to eat? | |
| 26 February 2007 | |
| The $5 a day deduction may be coming from the Christey case, in which 2 Minnesota police officers deducted meals as ordinary and necessary business expenses under IRC Section 162(a).
The IRS of course denied the deductions The officers filed suit in federal court, where they won. The IRS appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the officers won again. The IRS appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the IRS' appeal so the officers won again. Christey v. United States of America, 841 F.2d 809 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 89 U.S. 1016, 109 S. Ct. 1131 (1989). So in certain fact situations police officers can deduct the cost of their meals while on duty. | |
| 26 February 2007 | |
| Good point, Glmpllc, and that is why I put "in certain fact situations". | |
| 26 February 2007 | |
| IRS said they will not follow the Christey decision outside of the 8th Circuit. So, I guess it is ok for a Missouri State Highway Patrolman to claim this deduction, but not a California Highway Patrolman. | |
| 26 February 2007 | |
| The police magazine that ran the article (can't remember the name) printed a retraction the following month. All the departments I work with in California (about 6) do not have the same restrictions put on them that the Minnisota Highway patrol had. Therefore they would not qualify to take the deduction. | |
