Do company-provided meals need to be claimed on my taxes?
It looks like the resource to deciding these is here  Concerning the meals, the law seems a bit vague to me. You can exclude the value of meals you furnish to an employee from the   employee's wages if they meet the following tests. This exclusion does not apply if you allow your employee to choose to   receive additional pay instead of meals. If the whole point of google providing meals is to benefit Google as such people will not leave the googleplex when to obtain meals elsewhere causing increased productivity for Google, then this is covered as a business expense.  (Even if it wasn't, Google would have to notify you that it was providing you a non-expensable benefit, i.e. compensation, by giving you a 1099 at the end of the year). Concerning the other benefits, the only way I could see those items not being taxable benefits is if one of the two applies. "I believe there is an overtime meal allowance. That is, if an employee works ""overtime"" (defined as 7:00 p.m. for a 9:00 start, or ten-plus hours after the shift starts), the company can provide a non-taxable meal free of charge, or give a ""reasonable"" allowance ($15-$20) that must be spent outside on a meal (no drinks). This is because the employee is working extra hours at the convenience of the company. Lunches can be subsidized. That is the company can provide lunch on company premises, and must charge employees the direct costs of the food and preparing it, but can forego charging for ""overhead"" (e.g. the implied rent for the lunch facility) and profit." In many cases yes.  In the case of an employer handing employees a credit card to use, that is clearly income if the card is used for something other than a business expense. Generally speaking, if you're receiving something with a significant value without strings attached, it is likely taxable. Google no doubt has an army of tax attorneys, so perhaps they are able to exploit loopholes of some sort.
"There is no simple rule like ""you can/can't spend more/less than $X per person."" Instead there is a reasonableness test. There is such a thing as an audit of just your travel and entertainment expenses - I know because I've had one for my Ontario corporation. I've deducted company Christmas parties, and going-away dinners for departing employees, without incident. (You know, I presume, about only deducting half of certain expenses?) If the reason for the entertainment is to acquire or keep either employees or clients, there shouldn't be a problem.  Things are slightly trickier with very small companies. Microsoft can send an entire team to Hawaii, with their families, as a reward at the end of a tough project, and deduct it. You probably can't send yourself as a similar reward. If your party is strictly for your neighbours, personal friends, and close family, with no clients, potential clients, employees, potential employees, suppliers, or potential suppliers in attendance, then no, don't deduct it. If you imagine yourself telling an auditor why you threw the party and why the business funded it, you'll know whether it's ok to do it or not." "Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to ""gross up"" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . .  The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33.  The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle.  The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The ""gross-up"" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table.  If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld." "Companies often provide cafeteria, or catering services, to employees tax-free at subsidized rates. I'll use ""cafeteria"" as an illustration. The IRS says that in order to avoid lunch being taxed as income, the employees must pay the ""direct costs"" of the lunch, food and labor. In addition to those costs, cafeterias add two more items to come up with the total tab; ""overhead,"" (the cost of renting the space), and of course, profit. The company can waive the last two, and charge employees only materials and labor. That's why subsidized cafeteria food can cost as little as half of what it would cost elsewhere." "I can say that I got X dollars from an account like ""Income:Benefits""... but where do I credit that money to? ""Expenses:Groceries"" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food,  You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already?  Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the ""real"" expenses." I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was reported  as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income  tax was not withheld.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes  on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as  of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns.    My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash)  would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?)  and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your  2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a  mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments   for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP   for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility   for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the   problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend   your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the   value of the rental during those years as additional income,   and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional   amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture,   but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather   than in the future. If the 'gratuity' is a payment from your previous Indian company made when you left them, then the US tax system will treat it exactly the same as wages paid by your previous company. Whether or not you need to pay taxes on your wages and gratuity will depend on whether your are considered resident in the US for tax purposes for this financial year. It is likely that you will be. Assuming you are, then the US requires that you pay tax on all income, wherever it is earned in the world. You will need to fill in a tax return and declare both your gratuity and your wages in India for that year.  India and the US have a 'double tax agreement', which means essentially that you won't be taxed twice if you have already paid tax on the gratuity and wages in India. But you do have to declare them. "First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a ""Reasonable expectation of profit"". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level.  There is also a requirement for ""Reasonable Expenses"", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you.  I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action." "I had experience working for a company that manufactures stuff and giving products to the employees. The condition was to stay employed for a year after the gift for the company to cover its cost (I think they imputed the tax), otherwise they'd add the cost to the last paycheck (which they did when I left). But they were straight-forward about it and I signed a paper acknowledging it. However, in your case you didn't get a product (that you could return when leaving if you didn't want to pay), but rather a service. The ""winning"" trip was definitely supposed to be reported as income to you last year. Is it okay for them to treat me differently than the others for tax purposes? Of course not. But it may be that some strings were attached to the winning of the incentive trip (for example, you're required to stay employed for X time for the company to cover the expense). See my example above. Maybe it was buried somewhere in small letters. Can they do this a year after the trip was won and redeemed? As I said - in this case this sounds shady. Since it is a service which you cannot return - you should have been taxed on it when receiving it. Would the IRS want to know about this fuzzy business trip practice? How would I report it?  Here's how you can let them know. Besides now understanding the new level of slime from my former   employer is there anything else I should be worried about? Could they   do something like this every year just to be annoying? No, once they issued the last paycheck - you're done with them. They cannot issue you more paychecks after you're no longer an employee. In most US States, you are supposed to receive the last paycheck on your last day of work, or in very close proximity (matter of weeks at most)." I agree that the surface explanation is that expenses used to generate income are deducted, however there clearly is a double standard in how is applied.  For example I cannot deduct my car even though I use it primarily for commuting to work (I would consider that income generation), yet companies are allowed to deduct corporate jets. I can't deduct meals when I ate out with professional acquainted where much of the conversations are related to my profession and so directly relevant to my income, yet businesses can claim sending their executives to a country club because business was discussed or it was a team building excise. Etc etc. "Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in  IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance.  You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other   fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these   cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your   reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal   Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5   cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental   United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services   Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering ""per diem rates"" in   the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your   employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the   business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles   driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated,   you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is   subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security,   Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated   amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2   using code “L""" In Singapore, this is sufficiently common that the Singapore IRS has a page on their website dedicated to informing employers of how to properly pay this under Responsibilites of an Employer.   Specifically, tax paid by employer is taxable income for the employee (as it's really the employee's responsibility), so they must pay tax for that tax.  A tax-on-tax is computed for the tax paid, which also would be owed by the employer if they were paying the full tax rate for the employee. As a clarification, this is not the employer being truly responsible for the employee's income; this is the employer compensating the employee further to offset their taxable income.  This is effectively a fringe benefit, although it may be particularly useful in countries where either tax evasion is common (and thus an employer must compete with employers willing to pay under the table) or where employers are competing with others in nearby countries with lower tax rates.  It is not the same thing as the employer making your income nontaxable, though, and has implications for your tax filing. Significantly, it is likely that if you have additional income beyond income from that employer, it is likely to be taxed at your highest tax rate, as the employer will likely calculate the tax due based on their income being the only income you have in that year. *Edit based on emphasis in question: I'm not from Singapore nor am I a lawyer, but based on my reading of the IRAS website, it looks like you do not have to file if you have no other source of income, because they have a No-Filing Service which takes income information from your employer automatically and generates a tax bill, which presumably would be fully paid in your case.  This only aplies if you have no other sources of income, however; you still have to file if you have other sources of income since your employer would not know about them. If you are eligible for this service, you should get a letter informing you as such.  They also have a tool to check your filing status on their website. "Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income.  The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase ""double taxation"" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends.  In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double.  The answer to ""why?"" in that case can only be ""because it's the law.""]" "When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called ""Your Federal Income Tax""). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on ""Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses"". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say:  Commuting expenses.   You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip." Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything. You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status.  Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them.  You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return.  You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage.  The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness.  That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.