No, the lawyer cannot deduct the cost of his daily lunches. The tax rule that says you can't deduct personal expenses is stronger than the rule that lets you deduct business expenses. Eating lunch every day is a personal activity for everyone. Just because they talked about work doesn't turn the cost of food into a business write-off. This situation is different from special cases, like firefighters who were forced to pay for meals at the station. These lawyers simply chose to meet at lunch because it was convenient.

No, he can't deduct these lunches. I agree with the outcome, but I want to be clear that the main reason is because these lunches happened *every single day*. This decision might not apply to a business lunch that only happens once in a while.

No, Mr. Moss can't count his part of the lunch costs as a business expense because buying meals is usually a personal cost. I agree the lunches helped the firm do business, but paying for daily meals is still a personal expense. It's very hard to prove eating lunch every workday should be counted as a business cost. I also don't agree with the argument that the lunches count as an education expense.

I agree with the main decision, but want to be clear this doesn't mean meal costs can never be counted as business expenses when eating with only coworkers. In this case, it matters that the lawyers met for lunch every single workday because it was easy, not because they had to.

No, the taxpayer's share of his law firm's daily luncheon meeting expenses does not qualify as a deductible business expense. The Internal Revenue Code's prohibition on deducting personal expenses under § 262 takes priority over the provision for deducting business expenses under § 162. Daily meals are an inherently personal expense, and a taxpayer bears a heavy burden to prove otherwise. The fact that business was conducted for the convenience and benefit of the firm does not convert the cost of daily sustenance into a deductible business expense. Unlike the unique circumstances in cases like *Sibla* and *Cooper*, where firemen were involuntarily required to contribute to a common mess fund, the lawyers here were not compelled to participate, and the meetings were scheduled at a convenient time. The expense is analogous to non-deductible personal commuting costs, which are also necessary for business but are considered inherently personal.

No, the expenses in this particular case are not deductible. The holding should be understood narrowly based on the specific facts. The crucial factors are that the meetings were held for 'convenience' and occurred with extreme frequency—five days a week, 52 weeks a year. This opinion should not be interpreted as disallowing the cost of all business meals where only coworkers are present, especially if such meals are less frequent.

No, the petitioner is not entitled to deduct his share of the partnership's expenses for daily business luncheon meetings as ordinary and necessary business expenses because these expenses are inherently personal. The court acknowledges that the meetings had a business purpose and were beneficial to the firm. However, the cost of daily meals is inherently personal, and the taxpayer bears a heavy burden in proving they are routinely deductible. I distinguish this case from others where deductions for meals were allowed due to unique circumstances, which are not present here. I also reject the alternative argument that the meals qualify as an educational expense under section 1.162-5(a), Income Tax Regs.

I concur with the majority's decision but wish to clarify that this opinion should not be interpreted as disallowing the cost of meals in all instances where only partners or co-workers are involved. The specific findings in this case highlight that the partners met at lunch because it was 'convenient' and this convenience was a daily occurrence throughout the year.

Moss v. Commissioner

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot