Does a restaurant have to pay tax on a discount?
In almost any jurisdiction, the restaurant will pay tax on the amount after the discount. Discounting is just a selective way to reduce prices for particular clients and thus achieve some degree of price discrimination. It's no different in principle to cutting prices for everyone or having a sale or similar. It would be very strange for a tax jurisdiction to work any other way, because businesses would end up being taxed on money they never actually got. While tax systems often have that kind of anomaly in rare cases at the edge of the system, discounting via vouchers is extremely common. For example, here are the rules in the UK. I owned a restaurant for over 5 years. Sales tax was only collected on POST discount price, though every state that collects sales tax may have different laws regarding collection. For example, when a customer used a gift certificate, that did NOT reduce the amount that tax was collected on. Why? Because the restaurant at some point or another collected the full amount of the bill.
Assuming here that you're talking about deducting your tuition as a below the line deduction as a business expense or similar, then it depends. Per 1.162-5, if the education: Then it qualifies as a legitimate business expense and is deductible.  If not - if you're going to school for a different career, such as someone employed as a waiter but going to school to get a degree in nursing, or someone employed as a teacher getting a law degree - then it's not; you'd have to qualify under one of the other (simpler, but lesser) credits. Read more on this topic at Tax topic 513. Note that the other most commonly applicable deduction - the above the line Tuition and Fees deduction - expired in 2016 and is not applicable (yet?) in 2017, and further would not require most of what you describe as it only counts tuition and fees paid directly to the institution and required as a condition of attendance, so books, parking, etc. don't count. Yeah, BK does very little in terms of running restaurants, they are like hotels in that they run a brand and let individual owerns pay the fees to sign up. I don't get why they should be paying US taxes if someone in London decides to open a BK and pays their fee to BK, PLC based out of the UK. "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." If you received shares as part of a bonus you needed to pay income tax on the dollar valuse of those shares at the time you received them. This income tax is based on the dollar value of the bonus and has nothing to do with the shares. If you have since sold these shares you will need to report any capital gain or loss you made from their dollar value when you received them. If you made a gain you would need to pay capital gains tax on the profits (if you held them for more than a year you would get a discount on the capital gains tax you have to pay). If you made a loss you can use that capital loss to reduce any other capital gains in that income year, reduce any other income up to $3000 per year, or carry any additional capital loss forward to future income years to reduce any gains or income (up to $3000 per year) you do have in the future. Credit cards charge about 2% fee from merchants. This is already priced into the restaurant menu. Generally, dealing with cash will not cost the merchant significantly less since he needs to make more trips to the bank, pay fees for frequent cash deposits (banks charge per operation), and maintain a safe location for storage of that cash. Bottom line - I doubt it makes any significant difference to the restaurant owner. It's called bartering and the IRS has a page titled Four Things to Know About Bartering. The summary is -  The bottom line is this is taxable. "For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the ""refund"" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a ""don't ask, don't tell"" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this ""loophole"". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a ""donation"" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash." This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals. The coupon should save you $10 either way, assuming that you meet the criteria for using the coupon. You're figuring out the discount based on the cost of the food alone.  You should be including the tip in your calculations. Yes, they're tacking on something that is otherwise optional, but that's because enough people forget that the server works just as hard regardless of whether there's a coupon involved or not.  So, restaurants build the tip in to keep employee morale up, which in turn encourages them to keep a good level of service up. I guess it gets down to how much you tip.  If you typically don't tip -- which would be rather impolite -- then yes, you do lose money with a $60 meal.  If you tip 18%, then you save exactly $10 ($70.80 - $10.00 = $60.80).  If you normally tip 10-15% -- a customary range -- then it's somewhere in between. Edit: Following littleadv's discussion on this question, I am assuming that the 18% goes directly to the waitstaff and is more or less expected. If it doesn't (in which case one might choose not to tip at all because it would just line the pockets of the restaurant owner) then you're absolutely correct in figuring out the value of the coupon by treating the 18% as a tax. Unfortunately, no.  Think about the numbers. If you work for me, and I pay you $1000, you owe tax on $1000. If you still work, but I don't pay you, you have no tax due, but there's no benefit for you to collect for my stealing your time. Most companies that have employee discounts have policies to prevent exactly this. Sometimes they will say that you can only use the company discount for products that you intend to use yourself, they'll specifically ban buying things for friends. Of course enforcing such a rule can be difficult, but a car is a big enough purchase that if they have such a rule, they're likely to pay attention. Other times they try to discourage letting friends use your discount by having rules that make it awkward. Like I used to work for a furniture company that said you had to pick up the furniture personally at the office where you worked. So if you wanted to buy a sofa for your brother who lived in another state, you'd have to pay to ship it, and probably wipe out most of the savings from the employee discount. My daughter's employer says you have to show your employee ID when you make the purchase and then they deduct it from your next paycheck. So you'd have to get your friend to pay you back, maybe loan them your ID if they want to pick it out, which would get awkward. Etc. Assuming the company doesn't care if you buy with an employee discount and re-sell, or their rules are lax enough that you can get away with it, I'm not aware of any law that would stop you. In general there aren't any laws against you re-selling things you've bought. People have garage sales and sell used cars and the like all the time. (There are specific exceptions. Like you can't re-sell prescription drugs.) "Do you mean how much income tax the IRS will assess? Loans are not income, therefore they do not incur income tax. So as long as the money isn't being given, but being loaned, you don't have to pay income tax on it. And just in case you think there's a loophole of ""Instead of paying my workers, I'll just 'loan' them their paychecks, and then forgive the debt at the end of the year"", no, the IRS does consider loan forgiveness to be a form of income. So you need to look at whether the loan is going to you, or whether your business is a separate legal entity that is getting the money. If it's a capital contribution, then you are selling a stake in your company. Or, more precisely, as long as the money is going into the business, the company is selling a stake in itself. In that case, there generally isn't tax owed. Here's a Quara question that touches on this: https://www.quora.com/Is-money-raised-through-investors-taxed" "I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called ""depreciation"". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the ""value"" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary)." Please do not focus solely on income tax, and ignore all of the other taxes that businesses need to pay.  Payroll taxes for example.  If I make $15/hr, I cost my employer more than this in reality. "You mean to tell me that everyone doesn't pay his/her fair share?!  Please say it isn't so. :) Therein lies the welfare state:  Tax the rich more heavily to subsidize the poor, and hobble the rich's ability to do so on their own accord. In any case, though, in the United States, if you make any money whatsoever, that usually counts as income, and can hence be taxed.  Here's the IRS' definition of gross income.  Pretty all-inclusive, isn't it? Businesses are allowed to deduct expenses to count against their income, but if one has more expenses than income year after year, (a) this is the road to financial ruin, and (b) the IRS puts an end to the tax losses after enough years of failing to show a profit. So, sure, if a businessperson doesn't have any income, then they're technically using the roads, etc., ""for free,"" but unless the businessperson wants to live off the land and the kindness of strangers, he'd better turn a profit eventually.  Then he'll be taxed."