Discussion:Firefighter -- Meals while on 24 hr shift
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 05:19, 29 January 2008 Johnhuddleston (Talk | contribs) (Your milage from) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 05:21, 29 January 2008 Johnhuddleston (Talk | contribs) (Meals are a spec) Next diff → |
||
| Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
| John Huddleston | John Huddleston | ||
| [http://huddlestontax.com/id131.html Seattle Bellevue Tax Accountant]}} | [http://huddlestontax.com/id131.html Seattle Bellevue Tax Accountant]}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Johnhuddleston|Date=29 January 2008|Text=Meals are a special case. That is why there is a "for the convenience of the employer" rule. | ||
| + | |||
| + | John Huddleston | ||
| + | [http://huddlestontax.com Seattle Bellevue Tax Accountant]}} | ||
Revision as of 05:21, 29 January 2008
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Firefighter -- Meals while on 24 hr shift
| 28 March 2006 | |
| I have a firefighter taxpayer whose previous tax preparer allowed him to deduct on Form 2106 the cost of his meals while on a 24 hour shift (overnight at fire station). I know he is away from his home, but I don’t see this qualifying as travel away for taxpayer’s tax home. Am I missing something? Is there something unique to firefighters and the 24 hour shifts? | |
| 28 March 2006 | |
| Isn't this a meal consumed on employer's premises for convenience of employer? If so, it would be 100% deductible if paid by employer (no 50% reduction for M&E). So if paid by employee and required by employer but not reimbursed, I think your client is correct. | |
| 28 March 2006 | |
| 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. | |
| 29 March 2006 | |
| Riley2
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. | |
| 29 March 2006 | |
| So if not required as a condition of employment, no deduction anywhere. Correct? | |
| 29 March 2006 | |
| That is correct. I would add that it is very rare that the condition of employment test is met. This particular issue has been litigated often. | |
| 29 March 2006 | |
| Taxref, I stand corrected. You are correct.
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. | |
| 29 March 2006 | |
| The 1956 Revenue Ruling was superseded by the 9th Circuit's Sibla decision in 1980. See SIBLA v. COMM., 45 AFTR 2d 80-955 (611 F.2d 1260). | |
| 30 March 2006 | |
| Thanks for finding the cite Riley2...I remember when this issue first came out. Hard to believe people still don't "get it". | |
| 10 January 2007 | |
| I am reviving this old thread, because I feel that there are a lot of preparers that are choosing to ignore Sibla.
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? | |
| 10 January 2007 | |
| I have lost every firefighter client (luckily only 4 over 21 years)I have ever had over this issue. Someone in the firehouse will always find some preparer who will take the deduction. When that fireman doesn't get audited, everyone else in the station will go to his preparer the next year. On top of that they think the wrong guy is a tax expert and that their old preparers are idiots. | |
| 10 January 2007 | |
| Hear, hear! Taxref. I am pretty sure my last firefighter client will not me returning to me for the exact same reason. Apparently all of the other guys in the firehouse are using Turbo Tax. And they must be answering the questions the "right" way so that they all get the wrong answer. And, of course, I look like the big dummy.
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. | |
| 11 January 2007 | |
| Must be something about firefighters. I'm always being asked about the volunteer fire fighter credit? When I tell them there is no such credit, it's alway well so and so said his tax prepared let him take it. | |
Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said: | 11 January 2007 |
| Taxref - I have those types of clients too. Every year I get one or two of the "I work with a guy that is able to deduct those expenses, why can't I?" types. Then I have to explain why he can't claim the deduction. He looks at me like I fell off of the turnip truck and rolls his eyes. It's usually the last time I see him.
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 | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 11 January 2007 |
| Sw: you must know a lot of people from Delaware; there is a volunteer firefighter credit in that state! | |
| 11 January 2007 | |
| No, Kentucky, I think they considered passing a credit years ago and the rumor still out there. | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 12 January 2007 |
| Even though my husband's a fireman, I don't do any fireman taxes (except our own). They've all found someone to write off meals, uniforms (they go in the washing machine) and cell phones (city requires it - but I've never seen anything in writing). | |
| 31 January 2007 | |
| Thank-you so much. My husband and I argue over this every year. I was finally able to convince him I am right! | |
Cpabakem99 (talk|edits) said: | 31 January 2007 |
| SWAGLER (Tax Court - TC Opinion 2004-63)
"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 | |
| 3 February 2007 | |
| Here we go again. Somehow another firefighter snuck into our firm to get his taxes prepared. Unfortunately for him, our firm has a policy against preparing fraudulent returns. He came back later today to pick up his papers. | |
Kytaxpreparer (talk|edits) said: | 17 February 2007 |
| Death&taxes--While there is no volunteer credit, they can deduct personal miles for runs/meetings as charitable miles on sched A???? | |
| February 17, 2007 | |
| That's a thought, for the the ones that are already itemizing. They would have to keep records tho and that's asking a lot. I have lazy clients. They want deductions but keep lousy records. Sharon | |
Nbpretzelfan (talk|edits) said: | 19 February 2007 |
| I would like to reply to PVVCPA and his firefighter snuck in our firm comment. Well from a firefighter's wife (who is obviously more appreciative of what her husband does than Miss Bottom Line up top) here is hoping that you (PVVCPA) never have your firm or your home catch on fire or even better yet I sure hope you don't have a heartattack at your firm because a fireman is who will be SNEAKING in to help you!! And for the comment about not being able to deduct when you work through lunch, work late or work on Easter - Number 1 I am sure you are well compensated for your overtime and Number 2 if it is your firm and you work overtime - you chose to do so, it was not required of you and I am sure you could take your papers to your tax home and eat there. I was a legal secretary to a trial attorney for 10 years and I worked TONS of OT and ate tons of meals at my desk or on the run. The operative word is overtime. Time that is extra over your required work schedule. I guess the part that burns my butt is you all talk like these men are lazy men who do nothing for their money. When is the last time you had a drunk drug addict puke all over you? When is the last time you pulled a dead teenager from a car at 3:00 in the morning and had to see his parents face? When is the last time you went into a burning building to save someone you didn't even know? While a suit and tie claims his $75.00 steak dinner on the overnight business trip, your complaining about my husband deducting the standard allowance for a meal he usually doesn't even get to finish or has to eat cold. Next time your working over on Easter pal just remember that somewhere a man helping someone with AIDS or hepatitis and possibly being exposed or is going into a burning building and may not come out. He is not looking at his watch worrying about when he is getting home he just hopes he will get to go home. I sure hope no widows of firefighters have looked at this site. Oh lastly - he makes a heck of alot less money than you do and he puts his life on the line. It would be nice to see some respect or appreciation. Of course that will only come when you need him. | |
Chris2lane (talk|edits) said: | 20 February 2007 |
| Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning. Not once did anyone on this board knock their profession or degrade their abilities. You are a bit sensitive b/c your husband is a fireman. My brother is a police officer and I know for a fact that cops are notorious for trying to deduct everything under the sun. The same goes for the firefighters. That, in no way, does not mean we do not fully appreciate what they do for us. So please relax next time and take a breather before espousing on this tax site. | |
| 20 February 2007 | |
| I don't see how NB Pretzel fan's comments give any further understanding as to why firefighters want to take deductions illegally (or should I say fraudulently). Nice people who break the law by cheating are still breaking the law. | |
| February 20, 2007 | |
| NBPF. I am sorry and I hope you can accept my apology. I was in no way generalizing about the activities of ALL firefighters in any of my posts. I appreciate your husband's service and I am sure you and your husband are very honest people.
Every once in a while, a tax preparer gets pushed a little too hard by their clients. This forum is a great place to let off some steam. I am sure you can relate. BTW, my brother is a puking drunk addict with AIDS that likes to hang out in burning buildings. He would be extremely offended by your comments. | |
| 20 February 2007 | |
| NB,
I'd be very surprised if the vast majority of the participants on this board don't appreciate the work that firemen and policemen do and the risks they take in doing their jobs. Some of us even discount our fees as a way of showing that appreciation. However, we don't make the tax laws. Congress does. We don't enforce the tax laws. The IRS does. I can appreciate your frustration with the fact that some suit can write off his $70 steak, but your husband can't write off the cost of the lunch he wasn't able to eat because he went on a call. Your complaints on this issue are directed to the wrong parties. No matter how much we may disagree with a law, we can't change it or disregard it while preparing someone's taxes. My job is to assist my clients in preparing a tax return to pay the lowest legally required tax. When I sign that return, I am representing to the IRS that that return is prepared in accordance with all applicable laws. I for one, will not put myself (and the living I make which supports my family) at risk for a client to take a deduction if I know they are not entitled to it. I see that you are passionate about this issue, and rightly so. Your only avenue of redress though is through getting the laws changed. Write your representative and your senators. Have your husbands union pursue this on behalf of their members. I wish you luck. | |
Nbpretzelfan (talk|edits) said: | 20 February 2007 |
| I was not directing my tax law complaints to you and I didn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed. Also I was not trying to manipulate the law and take a deduction that I am not entitled to or I would not have gone here looking for whether it was okay to do or not. The tax book last year stated "if you are away from your tax home for 24 hours and cannot return to your tax home for meals you can deduct them". This seemed to be something that would include fireman. This year it was worded a little different and I wanted to make sure that it was okay to do. I even called the software preparer (taxcut.com)and they said there was a court case and that is how I found you. I was upset with some of your contributors because they seemed to really be down on fireman for trying to maximize their deductions and Chris2lane confirmed that by what he said. There are alot of people who abuse the system not just firemen and policemen. How about the richest of the rich who pay hardly anything? Also in response to Kevinh5, you missed my point. I, along with alot of other people obviously, or we wouldn't be here, thought you could take the deduction legally and that it applied because they HAVE to be at their place of employment for 24 hours. I wasn't trying to justify using it illegally at all. I am a Baptist and to make matters worse I used to be Catholic. I would be awake for nights if I took the stinkin deduction and it was not legal!!! Glmpllc I respect you for understanding my frustration and I respect you would not put your job at risk trying to take deductions that people are not entitled to. I guess the bottom line is the tax laws and the wording need to be more specific so common people who are doing their taxes can understand it without researching for hours on one stinkin subject. Lastly PVVCPA you need to get that brother some help! HA HA | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 20 February 2007 |
| I've re-read this entire post and am absolutely confused by Nbpretzelfan's comment that I don't appreciate my husband's work. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Like her, I have suffered through the silent treatment for days on end only to find out that the problem was that he pulled a dead child out of a swimming pool, no kisses for a month until the Aids tests run their course because he pricked himself trying to start an IV in the back of a moving ambulance, the burns on the neck because he got burned through the "safety equipment". It's a very tough job but we chose to marry into it. Unfortunately it took 9-11 for many people to gain respect for firefighters.
All that said, WE DON'T WRITE THE TAX CODE!! It is our job to prepare taxes according to the law. If you don't like the tax code, write your congressman. As an aside, if there is anything IN WRITING saying that a meal fund is required (the union contract is a great place to put this), then it can be deducted. | |
| February 20, 2007 | |
| BL - I think she misunderstood the following comment you made:
"They've all found someone to write off meals, uniforms and cell phones...." | |
Nbpretzelfan (talk|edits) said: | 20 February 2007 |
| Bottom Line I really apologize. I am sure that you have been in the same boat as me. My husband was exposed by getting blood in his eye and I have gone though many, many mood changes when he has not been able to save a baby or a kid. As I said I am not blaming you guys for the tax code, I was upset that it SEEMED like everyone was making fireman out to be people who try to cheat the system and you had that comment that "they've all found someone to write off meals, uniforms and cell phones", which uniforms are a legal deductions and firefighters are specifically mentioned. So there was a misunderstanding. With regard to Union Contracts, I don't know which state your are in but it seems harder and harder for them to get new "special" conditions in their union contracts. | |
| 20 February 2007 | |
| NB, "Tax Home" is considered to be 1) taxpayer's regular or principal (if there more than one) place of business or 2) if the taxpayer has no regular or principal place of business because of the nature of the work, the taxpayer's regular place of abode in a real and substantial sense. Being out of your personal residence for 24 hrs. or more does not qualify being away from your tax home.
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 | |
Nbpretzelfan (talk|edits) said: | 20 February 2007 |
| Acctax I appreciate your comments and I will write to my Representatives and Senators. I am a stay at home mom now and I enjoy a good legal debate once in awhile since I used to be a legal secretary. Don't get me wrong being with my kids beats being in court anyday. However a debate over something that might change things for other people would be a change over a debate of how late can we stay up? Speaking of which my firefighter husband is away from his tax home coaching high school hockey and I have to put my kids in bed. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. | |
| 20 February 2007 | |
| no, NB, he is NOT away from his "TAX HOME". His tax home is the area (metropolitan area) in which he works. It has NOTHING to do with where he lives. Which is why he can't take the deduction. | |
| 27 February 2007 | |
| As one of those firefighters that have claimed the meals before on my taxes, it is not a problem with the firefighters as much as it is with the tax preparer that is doing it for them. As for me I have asked several CPA's about this and they stated that we could. So the best thing to do is to take the time to educate the firefighters that come into your office, if need be print out a few pamphlets with the correct information on it and explain it to them so they can take the information back to the firehouse and share it.(what is the fastest way to get information spread around telegraph, telephone and tell a firefighter!!! lol) There are more preparers out there that will shine us on and tell us that we can and not submit it, than there are that will sit down and explain it to us, so the information that we receive is only as good as the person giving it. I don’t expect you to know my job tasks or understand the conditions or situations in which I have to perform them, as for asking for special treatment I don’t want any most of us really just want the correct information and to do the right thing. (There are the few that will do any thing they can to cheat the system, but that is in all professions not just ours!!) I come to you the tax professionals to do my taxes because you know the codes not me and I thank you for the work that you do, because if not for you I wouldn’t get paid in the first place!!!!! So please not special treatments just when the next tax hike comes around remember that, that is not just for trucks, hoses and stuff but where you pay for your firefighters and police, and that is how we get our pay.(honest days pay for an honest days worth of work!!!) again thank you! | |
| 9 April 2007 | |
| I am an Air Traffic Controller with a similar situation. I am being told I can deduct my meals because I am required to stay on premises for my entire shift and I am recallable at all times. Because I am subject to the DOT hours of service limitations I can deduct $52 per day worked and get 75% of the deduction. It was a local branch of a Nationally known , publically traded tax return company that told me this and will prepare my return for a fee and guarantee the return plus cover up to $5000 in back taxes if I get audited and lose. Hard to pass up. | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 9 April 2007 |
| Block/JH/Liberty strikes again. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Atcdav, under the Sec. 119 regulations, the only way that you would be entitled to this deduction is if the employer collected a regularly scheduled meal payment directly from you or your salary. Not sure who made you this promise, but suggest having the promise secured by a lien on his house. No reputable CPA or EA would make such a promise. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Form 8275-R would be required then, right? Make sure your preparer includes this form and fills it out completely. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| OMG
Kevin, that is too much, I needed a good laugh what a very interesting thread | |
Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2007 |
| Kevin, wouldn't it be an 8275-M....for meals | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| I am not an accountant, so sorry but the humor is lost on me. I agree with you, based on what I have been able to find, the deduction is not a good one. But of the 4 Accounting firms I contaceted, 3 said it is a legit deduction and one of those also said the firemen meal deduction is good. So there are plenty of firms willing to play the law of averages with an audit I guess. I googled form 8275-r. That form was never mentioned. If I decide to take the meal deduction I will be sure to discuss the form.
In mentioning sec. 119. If the employer has a cafeteria on the premises and we are restricted to the premises for the duration of our shift does this meet the requirement in sec. 119. There are other groups of employess at our location that are allowed to leave for lunch and get 30 minutes of unpaid time for lunch. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| 8275-R is a disclosure form required when a taxpayer takes a position contrary to a published regulation. The intent of the form is to let the IRS know you are doing something different than the laws clearly allow, and explain your reasoning (other than for a frivolous position). By filing the form, you will avoid many of the penalties that are normally associated with taking positions that have no basis in law. The preparer also can avoid many of the penalties for taking a position contrary to a regulation by disclosing completely all of the information.
| |
| April 10, 2007 | |
| Forget Googling. Just go to irs.gov, click Forms, and there they are. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Atcdav, you are taking the advice out of context. In the case of firefighters, the deduction is allowed only because the firefighter is required as a condition of his employment to make a periodic payment to his employer, and he is required to make this payment regardless of whether he eats the meals or not. Don't take my word for this -- read the Supreme Court's Sibla decision.
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. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| I appreciate your advice. I tend to agree with you. I have been looking long and hard for something to substantiate the deduction but have found nothing. I have however found many instances of the deductions being denied. But why would a tax preparer with a national brand name suggest to me to take the deduction and want to back it with a written guarantee?
there was also US Supreme court's USA v Christey. 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 | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Christey was an Eighth Circuit decision involving Minnesota state troopers who were required under regulations to eat their meals at certain locations (roadside restaurants) while remaining in radio contact with dispatch. The courts ruled that the meals expenses were ordinary and necessary business expenses since the troopers were never really off-duty. The Internal Revenue Service will not follow the decision outside of the Eighth Circuit. However, taxpayers in the Eighth Circuit (Ark., Iowa, Minn., Mo, Neb., N.D., S.D.) are justified in citing this case. | |
Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2007 |
| Why ask why? They don't guarantee it's right, they guarantee they will pay the penalties if it's wrong. It is wrong.
When confronted with "my other guy let me take the deduction", tell your client flat out that the other guy was WRONG. Inform your client that: "I do not work for the IRS or the State Department of Revenue. I work for you. It's my job to prepare your taxes accurately and legally...to take full advantage of the deductions and credits that you are legally entitled to take. Just because your former preparer allowed you deductions that you weren't entitled to or illegal doesn't make it right". Then go to explain why the other preparer was wrong and the jeopardy that the preparer had placed the client in by preparing the taxes in the matter that they did. Worst case, the guy walks out now, or is a no show next year. At least, you did your part to narrow the tax gap...one meal at a time. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Ok, my bad. But my question would be where is it in the irs code that an employee who is always on duty can take the meal deduction when not traveling. How did the 8th circuit reach its decision? We are always on duty and required to eat in certain locations, often at the sector inbetween clearances. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Atcdav, I see nothing in IRS letter in the hypertext link that is controversial. The letter merely points out that transportation industry workers are entitled to a deduct a higher percentage of their meals that are otherwise deductible. This is true. See Sec. 274(n)(3). In fact, the percentage goes up to 80% next year. This does not mean that air traffic controllers should expect to deduct their on-duty meals. | |
Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2007 |
| Atcdav - my bad. I thought you were preparing taxes for a client that was an air traffic controller. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Yes but the Kapp article mentioned did allude to the conclusion that controllers were entitled to the deduction merely for being controllers. That was Kapp's conclusion and the statement in the letter that they found no "conflicts"...he takes as a green light for the deduction. I called his office and spoke with him personally.
His quote in the article, "Recently, both Congress and President Clinton officially agreed to allow many controllers to take the same travel deductions as pilots," raise alot of eyebrows. He never come out and directly says controllers can deduct their meals at work but that is the theme of the article and the conclusion most arrive at. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| I also called a local tax preparer-national brand name, who did a friends return, they said they have been doing it(taking the deduction) for 15 years, they stand behind their work with the guarantee I mentioned before.
Reluctantly, I have declined all invitations to take the deduction. Until I can find concrete proof anyway. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Atcdav, After talking to all of these tax advisors, you may have reached the conclusion that this is a grey area of the law; however, outside the Eighth Circuit, the law on this issue is crystal clear. By the way, do you live in the Eighth Circuit?
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. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| None of the conditions you just mentioned apply to me. But let me ask a simplistic question. How can the 8th Circuit decision only apply to taxpayers in their district. That means the IRS treats people in different parts of the country differently. So I am suject to the IRS code as interpreted by 7th district. Do you know if anyone has cited Christey to successfully win their case in court? | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2007 |
| It is not uncommon for the IRS to treat taxpayers in different Circuits differently. The tax store is paying the audit lottery. Please refer to the problems that Jackson Hewitt had a couple of weeks ago. In my opinion, that franchisee was also playing the lottery. Just because you don't get caught, doesn't make it right. | |
| 10 April 2007 | |
| Atcday, I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that other circuits are not bound by decisions in another part of the country. That's why the IRS treats it this way. They could possibly prevail in other circuits.
I'm glad this came up. I am running into this again from police officers who are referred to me by a long time friend who is a major in the police department. He asked me about it a long time ago, gave him the answer and told his officers that it didn't apply to them and to follow the law since they are required to enforce the law. | |
Uticataxman (talk|edits) said: | 7 November 2007 |
| Air Traffic Controllers are included in the wording soley because under the law, they are transportation workers like pilots and over-the-road truck drivers, who must take a break after performing duties for 10 hours. Only occupations which are actually performing their transportation duties while away from their tax home, and thus subject to the 10-hour rule benefit from the deduction at the higher rate.
The only time controllers can deduct meal expenses is while they are away from their tax home and then they can only deduct 50% of their meal expenses. Controllers would normally not be in a travel status while actually performing ATC duties. | |
Divebobber (talk|edits) said: | 19 January 2008 |
| Bottom Line, I was under the impression that Federal law was supposed to be applied equally to everyone. I thought that was one of the things the Constitution guaranteed. How can a federal court decision not be applied to everyone? That doesn't make sense. | |
| 19 January 2008 | |
| welcome to the tax world, Dive. It doesn't have to make sense, that's just the way it is. Google tax district court and do some reading if you don't believe us who have already paid for our education in the topic. | |
Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said: | 19 January 2008 |
| Know the rules...don't try to make sense of them. That will save alot of headache. | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 20 January 2008 |
| Now you know why the 9th Circuit is sometimes referred to as the 9th Circus. | |
| 21 January 2008 | |
| Dive, the law does apply equally to all, sort of. When the IRS disagrees with a taxpayer, the argument goes to court. Judges in one district, e.g. the 9th, review the facts and come to a conclusion. The IRS disagrees with their conclusion. The issue gets argued again in a different district and the court comes to a different conclusion. So the IRS follows the ruling in the one district where it disagrees with the position, but everywhere else it says the 9th district decision was wrong and we won't follow it in other jurisdictions. Ultimately then on significant issues it goes to the Supreme Court which looks at the arguments from both districts and makes a final determination that is applicable to all districts. Then the issue is settled nationwide. | |
Firefighter1 (talk|edits) said: | 23 January 2008 |
| I found this site while looking for standard firefighter deductions allowable and am a little taken back. While I understand the "law" pertaining to the meal issue, you should know that at city fire academies nation wide, they are teaching new hires that meals are a standard deduction. Indianapolis Fire Academy sent our new guys home with a sheet of paper after a full 8 hour day class on deductions and listed at the very top was up to 25 dollars per day contributed to a food fund. I would say that at least 80% of full time departments...if not many more all have a daily food fund that we pitch into for our food. I'm glad I investigated this more in depth, but there isn't a city out there that I know of that deducts food from a firefighter's salary automatically. How could anyone do that considering we get vacation days and comp time for working 53 hour work weeks?
I'm not looking to "scam" any system, but it IS being taught that it's a legal deduction. The fact that firefighters "sneak" into your offices looking for this is because that it's taught. If I hadn't found this thread, I would never have known otherwise. They leave and find someone who will prepare the deduction not because we're looking for a scam, it's because we believe it to be true. If one attorney wouldn't take your case, would you give up and pleed guilty? No, you'd go down the street to the next guy. The same thing is happening here. I personally don't want a hand out, but a little respect would be nice. You know sales people write off every meal they eat no matter where they eat it. Landlords write off crap they buy for their own homes and nobody raises an eyebrow, but a firefighter...who is stuck in a station for 24 hours seeks a deduction for meals "while working" it's another story. Maybe you're professional organizations could put out some info to the IAFF and the fire academies out there. | |
| 23 January 2008 | |
| it is NOT taught as a legal deduction to tax professionals. If I were you, Firefighter, I would ask your organizations why THEY are teaching illegal activities? | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 23 January 2008 |
| If I read my Firefighter correctly, he talks about contributing money for the food. He does not explain if it is a condition of employment. He does use the term 'pitch in' which makes it sound voluntary, but I can see just from reading here the confusion that can come up.
Up above I read Riley, "Atcdav, you are taking the advice out of context. In the case of firefighters, the deduction is allowed only because the firefighter is required as a condition of his employment to make a periodic payment to his employer, and he is required to make this payment regardless of whether he eats the meals or not. Don't take my word for this -- read the Supreme Court's Sibla decision." | |
| 23 January 2008 | |
| Firefighter1 makes a valid point. If this is what they're taught in fire training school, then I can understand where they expect the deduction automatically.
I strongly suggest that Firefigher1, you inform the instructors that gave you that (mis)information, to come to this sight, and this thread, where this issue is discussed, to see that the meal deduction is not etched in stone, and misinformation is being spread around. Having been a volunteer fireman for many years, I can understand your frustration, as most fireman are not experts in the tax law and follow the instructions they've been given in training. It might prompt a change in the literature given when it comes to occupational tax deductions. | |
| 24 January 2008 | |
| If the firefighter is required to contribute to the food fund as a condition of employment, then I see no problem with the exclusion or the deduction.
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). | |
| 24 January 2008 | |
| Firefighter1
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!!! | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 24 January 2008 |
| Firefighter1, we're not picking on firefighters. We see this all the time with all kinds of things - donate your car to get the tax deduction (taking the standard deduction may be better), buy a house and it will save you money on your taxes (maybe-maybe not). The problem is that bad info is being passed out by people that don't know. In this case it is the instructors at the schools that are great at teaching fire science but don't know about taxes. | |
| 29 January 2008 | |
| fireman in south carolina have several deductions and we USE THEM.
3000.00 state deduction for volunterr fireman based on certian criteria,training,attedance,call volume,work detail we can use phones if you get tex messages of the call if we have personal equipment that gets damaged on a scene,thats deductable,depending on cercomstances(hazmat) every tax joint in the state does the food allowance i wear eye glasses,you can write off a fitted mask specificly for glasses if you buy one | |
| 29 January 2008 | |
| Chicken, did you vote for Guliani in the primary? [Rudy Giuliani] Maybe you could write a letter to Congress from the Boiling Springs FD to let them know that you think this should be a legal deduction. Your voice would matter. Right now, it is not legal to take the meal deduction, unless required as a condition of your employment. Believe us, we want you to have it, but you are barking up the wrong tree - you need to write to your congressperson. | |
| 29 January 2008 | |
| (gee, I wonder if the IRS is still reading these forums looking for easy audits?) | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| The national fire union has come out against Giuliani. | |
| 29 January 2008 | |
| ok...I'll make this short and sweet...
I have not read all the posts in this forum (there are just too many and I don't understand everything that's being said). I do my own taxes every year (I'm just an average American firefighter with no tax preperation expertise, hence the comment above). Can someone just give me a quick list of what can be deducted and what forms I need to fill out. I was under the impression that I could deduct my meals, but I see that has been shot down. What about union dues? And what about deducting the mileage I accure traveling to another station? Occasionally, my employer messes up the work schedule and when I show up at my normal assigned station I am transfered to another station for a day. What about classes I have taken related to work? I am not required to go to them by my employer technically, however I am in an indirect way. In order to keep my certificate current I have to attend so many classes outside of work. Can I deduct the travelling, meal, and cost of class expenses? Ok that wasn't short, my apologies, but the tax laws are often very confusing, esp for someone who does not deal with this stuff on a daily bases. Thanks in advance | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| Several of the items you mentioned may be deductible. Unfortunately you'll need to review your specific circumstances to determine if they are deductible in your situation. The best place to start is the instructions for Schedule A (Itemized Deductions)and Form 2106 (Employee Business Expenses). The brief summary of it is that you can only deduct what is in excess of 2% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and you have to itemize. | |
Johnhuddleston (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| Your milage from one site to another, union dues and courses you take for your employment are all misc itemized deductions.
John Huddleston Seattle Bellevue Tax Accountant | |
Johnhuddleston (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| Meals are a special case. That is why there is a "for the convenience of the employer" rule.
John Huddleston Seattle Bellevue Tax Accountant | |


