Lindeman V. Beach Club Hotel

Varand Harounian
Professor Yan-shu Zao
Acc431.03
October 24, 2017 In the case Lindeman v. Commissioner, the court wanted to determine whether the Lodging and meals received by Lindeman and his family by the employer should be included in gross income or excluded due to section 119. According to IRS tax laws, Section 119 states that (1) The lodging is furnished for the convenience of the employer; (2) the employee is required to accept the lodging as a condition of his employment; and (3) the lodging is "on the business premises" of the employee(www.leagle.com). In this case Lindeman met the requirements of 1 and 2 stated above of code 119 however, the court was trying to determine whether the lodging was on the business premises. Lindeman
In this case, although the lot was acquired by Galt and leased to the Beach Club Hotel the lot 18 on block 11 is considered as business premises hence the parking is specifically provided for use of customers and employees. Lindeman's regular hours of work was from 8 to 5 but he is on call 24/7; in addition, Lindeman had an office at his new location where he would conduct company business, use window to look for any disturbance at the Beach Club hotel across, and on occasion bring company guests over to his house to provide entertainment. According to the section 119, "exclusion applies where the lodging is furnished at a place where the employee performs a significant portion of his duties or on the premises where the employer conducts a significant portion of his business"(www.leagle.com). Therefore, Lindeman met all the requirements of section 119
While the Anderson vs Commissioner case did satisfy the requirement of on premises of business hence near or two blocks short does satisfy the word "on" the business premises, However, Anderson was not performing any business duties at his house other than being on call which didn’t satisfy the court to grant him the exclusions on his gross