The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce v. The United States
334 F.2d 660, 167 Ct. Cl. 392, 14 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5223 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Internal Revenue Code § 119, the value of employer-provided lodging is excludable from an employee's gross income if it is furnished for the employer's convenience, the employee is required to accept it as a condition of employment to properly perform their duties, and the lodging is on the employer's business premises. A residence can qualify as 'business premises' if it is a site where the employee performs significant duties of their employment.
Facts:
- The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce (plaintiff) is a non-profit corporation that elects a new president each year for a single, one-year term.
- The presidents during the years in question came from various states and returned to their respective homes and careers after their term ended.
- The plaintiff's by-laws required its president to live in a specific house it owned in Tulsa, Oklahoma, known as the 'U.S. Jaycee White House,' during their tenure.
- The plaintiff paid all operating and maintenance expenses for the house, and the presidents did not pay any rent.
- Presidents spent about half their time in Tulsa and were required to work during both the day and night.
- While in Tulsa, the presidents used an office in the house at night for official business, including conducting staff meetings, briefings, and official entertainment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the fair rental value of the residence provided to the plaintiff's presidents was income and assessed withholding and F.I.C.A. taxes against The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce for 1959 and 1960.
- The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce paid the assessed taxes and interest, totaling $747.89.
- The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce filed a claim for a refund with the District Director of Internal Revenue, which was disallowed.
- The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce filed this suit in the United States Court of Claims seeking a refund of the taxes and interest it paid.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fair rental value of a residence, provided by an employer and required to be used by its one-year-term presidents for both living and conducting significant official business, qualify for exclusion from the presidents' gross income under IRC § 119?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, Senior Judge
Yes. The fair rental value of the house is excludable from the gross income of the plaintiff's presidents under IRC § 119 because all three conditions of the statute were met. The court found that the 'convenience of the employer' and 'condition of employment' tests were satisfied because the presidents' short, one-year terms and the organization's need for a suitable space for nighttime work and official entertainment made providing the residence a practical requirement for them to properly perform their duties. The court rejected a strict necessity test, stating the test is met if the nature of the business requires a certain type of residence. Finally, the house constituted 'business premises' because it was a place where the presidents performed significant duties of their employment, such as holding meetings and hosting official functions.
Analysis:
This decision provides a flexible, fact-based interpretation of the requirements for excluding employer-provided lodging from income under IRC § 119. It clarifies that the 'business premises' test is not limited to a traditional office but extends to any location where an employee performs substantial duties. The court also effectively merges the 'convenience of the employer' and 'condition of employment' prongs into a single practical inquiry, focusing on what is reasonably necessary for the employee to properly perform their job. This ruling is significant for employers whose employees have unique work requirements, such as temporary relocation or the need to work and entertain from home, by broadening the circumstances under which provided housing can be a non-taxable benefit.
