text:
Rymel v. Save Mart Supermarkets Date: December 31, 2018 .... Justia Opinion Summary: Stockird's handwritten will transferred “all my ... City of San Diego v. ..... and Morin responded to a report that a man (Neal) at the Antioch Marina was ..... four children who were dependents of the juvenile court: two daughters, Maria Q.
City of Athens, Ohio, Defendant-appellant ... Joan Marie Anderson (02-1662); Francis Albert Sagorski (02-1673); Rodger Bruce ... American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. .... Corporation in the State of California, Petitioner/cross-respondent, v. ..... The Antioch Company, Plaintiff- appellant, v.
As of February 8, 2008 all opinions are Adobe Acrobat PDF documents. ..... City of Virginia Beach 12/06/2018 In ruling on the sufficiency of a city's production of ...... to enforce a subpoena duces tecum requiring a California Internet-based social ...... in its unpublished memorandum opinion, Renee Bagley Nunnally, et al . v.
385, 0390145, 6/21/02, $325.96, MARIA DE JESUS DAVILA, 1921 48TH AVE APT. .... OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY, 6201 ANTIOCH ST, STE 300, OAKLAND, CA, 94611 ... 488, 0595864, 5/9/03, $461.10, GROBELNY WLADYSLAW ETAL .... MOHAMMADY AHMAD R ETAL, 550 APPIAN WAY, UNION CITY, CA, 94587.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ("Review Commission") is an independent agency of the U.S. Government that was established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ("Act") to be like a court that resolves certain disputes under the Act. The Review Commission is composed of three members who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for six-year terms. It employs Administrative Law Judges to hear cases.
The Act was passed by Congress to "assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women." The Act also established another agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"), which is part of the U.S. Department of Labor, to enforce the law. OSHA issues regulations setting occupational safety and health standards that an employer must follow. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, OSHA may also conduct an inspection of a workplace. If OSHA's inspectors find what they believe are unsafe or unhealthy conditions, they may issue a citation to an employer. A citation includes allegations of workplace safety or health violations, proposed penalties, and proposed dates by which an employer must correct the alleged hazardous conditions.
If the cited employer or any of its employees or an employee representative disagrees with the citation, they may then file a timely notice of contest. The Review Commission (which is completely independent of OSHA) then comes into the picture to resolve the dispute over the citation.
This Guide is intended to inform employers, employees, and other interested persons about Review Commission proceedings. It provides an overview of the proceedings conducted before the Administrative Law Judges and the Commission Members and it is primarily intended to assist persons in defending their business or their employer’s business after having contested an OSHA citation. It will also be useful to other persons who desire a general overview of the Review Commission and its procedures.
This guide is intended to provide an overview of the Review Commission’s procedures and it is not intended to be a substitute for the Rules of Procedure, which are followed in the Review Commission’s proceedings in deciding cases. Parties to cases should review the Rules and follow them in proceedings before judges and the Commission members.
This guide describes many of the documents and steps in proceedings before the Commission members and judges. Throughout this Guide, important terms are shown in bold italics and many are included in the Glossary.
The Review Commission's Rules do not require that a party--an employer, a union, or affected employee(s)--be represented by a lawyer. However, proceedings before the Review Commission are legal in nature. Certain legal formalities must be followed. OSHA will be represented by lawyers from the Solicitor of Labor's Office, the employer may be represented by a lawyer, and the decision in the case may have consequences beyond the amount of the penalty. For example, a decision may require corrective actions at a worksite. Parties to cases should consider carefully whether to hire a lawyer to represent them in their case.
Many of the documents parties are required to file, such as those needed to disagree with an OSHA citation or proposed penalty, must be filed within a specific time period. Failure to file documents as required could result in a citation becoming a final order without an opportunity to appeal. Therefore, parties to cases must respond promptly to communications received from the judge, the Commission, or any of the other parties to the dispute.
The Appendixes contain forms and sample correspondence that may be used or referred to in preparing a case. These are mentioned as appropriate throughout the Guide.
Parties to cases having questions regarding the Commission’s procedures in cases pending before a judge should call the judge’s office. At other stages of the proceedings, inquiries should be directed to the Executive Secretary’s Office at 202-606-5400. Commission employees cannot give legal advice or advise a party how to proceed. However, they can provide information about the Rules of Procedure and the Commission’s methods of processing cases.
Cases that come before a Review Commission judge arise from inspections conducted by OSHA, an agency of the United States Department of Labor. When OSHA finds what it believes to be a violation at a worksite, it will notify the employer in writing of the alleged violation and the period of time it thinks reasonable for correction by issuing a written citation to the employer.
The period of time stated in the citation for an employer to correct the alleged violation is the abatement period. OSHA likely will also propose that the employer pay a monetary penalty.
The Act requires that the employer immediately post a copy of the citation in a place where affected employees will see it, to have legal notice of it. An affected employee is an employee who has been exposed to or could be exposed to any hazard arising from the cited violations.
If an employer disagrees with any part of the OSHA citation--the alleged violation, the abatement period, or proposed penalty--it must notify OSHA in writing of that disagreement within 15 working days (Mondays through Fridays, excluding Federal holidays) of receiving the citation. This written notification is referred to as a notice of contest, and if it is filed late with OSHA, the employer is not usually entitled to have the dispute resolved by the Commission.
The notice of contest must be delivered in writing to the Area Director of the OSHA office that mailed the citation. The Area Director's name and address will be listed on the citation. A notice of contest must not be sent to the Commission.
If a citation is issued, an employer may schedule an informal conference or engage in settlement discussions with the OSHA Area Director, but this does not delay the 15 working day deadlinefor filing a notice of contest. Thus, if an informal conference is conducted that does not result in a written settlement agreement, if a notice of contest is not filed within the 15 working day deadline all citation items must be abated and all penalties must be paid.
For example, if there are two citations and the employer wishes to contest only one of them, the citation being contested should be identified. If there are six different items alleged as violations in a single citation and the employer wishes to contest items 3, 4, and 6, those items should be specified.
If the employer wishes to contest the entire penalty, or only the amount for one citation or specific items of one citation, or only the abatement period for some or all of the violations alleged, this should also be specified.
For any item (violation) not contested, the abatement requirements must be fully satisfied and any related penalty must be paid to the Department of Labor. If the employer contests whether a violation occurred, the abatement period and the proposed penalty for that item is suspended until the Commission issues a final decision.
The OSHA Area Director sends the notice of contest to the Commission. The Executive Secretary’s Office then notifies the employer that the case has been received and assigns a docket number. This docket number must be printed on all documents sent to the Commission.
At the time the employer receives the Notice of Docketing that the case has been filed and given a docket number, the Commission will furnish a copy of a notice to be used to inform affected employees of the case. A pre-printed post card is sent to the employer with this notice; the employer returns the post card to the Commission to inform it that affected employees have been notified.
Unions or affected employees wishing to participate in a dispute may file a notice of contest (see Appendix 1C) challenging the reasonableness of the period of time given to the employer for abating (correcting) an alleged violation.
Even if the employer does not contest the citation, unions or affected employees can object to the abatement period. This must be done within 15 working days of the employer’s receipt of the citation. The notice of contest should state that the signer is an affected employee or a union that represents affected employees and that the signer wishes to contest the reasonableness of the abatement period.
Cases heard by Administrative Law Judges may proceed in one of two ways: conventional proceedings or simplified proceedings. Each method is described in detail in Sections 3 and 4 of this Guide. The Chief Administrative Law Judge may designate a case for simplified proceedings soon after the notice of contest is received at the Review Commission. Parties may also request simplified proceedings within 20 days of the date on the notice of docketing. If a case is not designated for simplified proceedings, conventional proceedings are in effect.
This section describes the major features of the Commission's hearings conducted under the Conventional Proceedings method as opposed to hearings conducted under Simplified Proceedings. Simplified Proceedings are explained briefly in Section 4 and in a separate guide that should be consulted by those persons interested in that method of hearing cases.
The Commission encourages the Settlement of cases. Cases can be settled at any stage. The Secretary of Labor and the employer must agree to the settlement terms, and the affected employees or their union must be shown the settlement before it will be approved.
Hearings are governed by Rules 60-74. The parties will be notified of the time and place of the hearing at least 30 days in advance. The employer must post the hearing notice if there are any employees who do not have a representative and served on all unions representing affected employees. The hearing is usually conducted as near the work place as possible.
At the hearing, a Commission Judge presides. The hearing enables the parties to present evidence on the issues raised in the complaint and answer. Each party to the proceedings may call witnesses, introduce documentary or physical evidence, and cross-examine opposing witnesses. In conventional proceedings, the Commission follows the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under these rules, evidence is only admitted into the record if it meets certain criteria that are designed to assure that the evidence is reliable and relevant.
A transcript of the hearing will be made by a court reporter. A copy may be purchased from the reporter.
After hearing the evidence and considering all arguments, the judge will prepare a decision based upon all of the evidence placed in the hearing record and mail copies of that decision to all parties. The parties then can object to the judge's decision by filing a Petition for Discretionary Review (See Appendix 6 for an example.) Instructions for submitting such a petition will be stated in the judge’s letter transmitting the decision and in a Notice of Docketing of Administrative Law Judge’s Decision issued by the Executive Secretary’s Office. See Rule 91 for further information on filing Petitions for Discretionary Review.
If a Commissioner does not order review of a judge's decision, it becomes a final order of the Commission 30 days after the decision has been filed. If a Commissioner does direct review, it will ultimately issue its own written decision and that decision becomes the final order of the Commission.
Any party who is adversely affected by a final order of the Commission can appeal to a United States Court of Appeals. However, the courts usually will not hear appeals from parties that have not taken advantage of all possible appeal rights earlier in the case. Thus, a party who failed to file a petition for review of the judge's decision with the Commission likely will not be able to later appeal that decision to a court of appeals.
Hearings are less formal. The Federal Rules of Evidence, which govern other trials, do not apply. Each party may present oral argument at the close of the hearing. Post-hearing briefs (written arguments explaining your position in the case), will not be allowed except by order of the judge. (See Rule 209(e).) In some instances, the judge will render his or her decision "from the bench," which means the judge will state at the end of the hearing whether the evidence and testimony proved the alleged violations and will state the amount of the penalty the employer must pay, if a violation is found.
You must file your request within 20 days of docketing of your case by the Executive Secretary’s Office. The request must be in writing and it is sufficient if you state: “I request Simplified Proceedings.” The Chief Judge or the assigned judge will then rule on your request.
4.Witnesses and Exhibits. The parties are expected to list the witnesses they intend to call if there is a hearing, and to list any documents or physical evidence they intend to introduce to support their positions. For example, you should list any photographs that you believe show the existence of a safety device that the Secretary claims you failed to provide.
The Commission will notify you whether your petition has been granted (see Appendix 7). If it is granted, your case will then proceed under the Commission's conventional rules.
All notices the Commission sends to the parties will list the name and address of all parties or their representatives. (See Rule 22.) Parties must do the same.
For failure to correct a violation within the period permitted: up to $7,000.00 for each day it remains uncorrected.
An employer who does not contest a citation is required to correct all of the violations within the abatement period specified in the citation. If the Commission upholds a contested citation, the employer must then correct the violation, with the abatement period starting on the date of the Commission's final order. If the employer has made a good faith effort to correct a violation within the abatement period but has not been able to do so because of reasons beyond his or her control, the employer may file a Petition for Modification of Abatement (PMA). This petition is filed with the OSHA area director and should be filed no later than the end of the next working day following the day on which abatement was to have been completed. It must state why the abatement cannot be completed within the given time. The PMA must be posted in a conspicuous place where all affected employees can see it or near the location where the violation occurred. The PMA must remain posted for 10 days. The Secretary of Labor may not approve a PMA until the expiration of 15 working days from its receipt.
In order that Affected Employees may have the opportunity to be kept informed of the status of the case, the employer must keep available at some convenient place copies of all pleadings and other documents filed in the case so they can be read at reasonable times by Affected Employees.
Employer files notice of contest with OSHA office that mailed citation -- within 15 working days of receiving the citation.
Employer receives notification (notice of docketing) from Commission of case, docket number and forms to notify employees.
Employer posts notification to employees of case in progress.
Union and/or affected employees may contest reasonableness of abatement period; notice of contest is sent to citing OSHA office within 15 working days of the employer’s receipt of the citation.
Receives a complaint from OSHA's attorneys.
Files an answer to the complaint within 20 calendar days of receiving the complaint.
Discusses discovery techniques with the judge when applicable.
Participates in a conference call to discuss issues and a possible settlement.
Engages in discovery; exchanges interrogatories and depositions.
Prepares for and participates in the hearing.
May purchase a copy of the hearing transcript and may choose to submit a brief to the judge.
Judge issues a decision. (If dissatisfied, any party may ask for Commission review of the decision.
Union and/or affected employees may contest reasonableness of abatement period; notice of contest is sent to citing OSHA office within 15 working days of citation's posting at work place.
Prepare for and participate in the hearing.
Present oral arguments at the close of the hearing.
Receives judge's decision; dissatisfied with the outcome.
Files petition for discretionary review of the judge's decision.
Receives notification from Commission that case is or is not directed for review.
If the case is not directed for review, the judge’s decision is a final order of the Commission and the employer may file a petition for review in a Court of Appeals.
Receive a request from Commission for briefs on review.
File briefs on review before Commission.
Receive Commission decision that may supercede the judge’s decision and affirm, modify or reverse it. In some cases, the judge’s decision may be remanded for further proceedings.
Files petition for review in Court of Appeals if dissatisfied with Commission decision.
Affected Employee -- An affected employee is one who has been exposed to or could be exposed to any hazard arising from the cited violations -- that is the circumstances, conditions, practices, or operations creating the hazard.
Answer -- Written document filed in response to a complaint, consisting of short plain statements denying the allegations in the complaint which the employer contests.
Authorized Employee Representative -- A labor organization, such as a union, that has a collective bargaining relationship with the employer and represents affected employees or may be an affected employee(s) in cases where unions do not represent the employees.
Brief -- A written document in which a party states what the party believes are the facts of the case and argues how the law should be applied.
Conventional Proceedings -- Typical Review Commission proceedings, which are similar to, but less formal than, court proceedings.
Exhibit -- Something, e.g., a document, video, etc., that is formally introduced as evidence at a hearing.
Interlocutory Appeal -- An appeal of a judge's ruling on a preliminary issue in a case that is made before the judge issues a final decision on the full case. These types of appeals are infrequently made and are infrequently allowed. One example of an issue often raised in an interlocutory appeal is whether certain material that a party wants kept confidential, such as an employer's trade secrets or employee medical records, should become part of the public record in a case.
Motion -- A request asking that the judge direct some act to be done in favor of the party making the request or motion.
Notice of Appearance -- A written letter informing the Review Commission of the name and address of the person or persons who will represent a party (that is, the employer or a union or OSHA) in a case.
Secretary of Labor -- The head of the U.S. Department of Labor. OSHA is part of that Department.
Simplified Proceedings -- Review Commission proceedings that are less formal than Conventional Proceedings and designed for smaller and relatively simple cases. A complaint and answer are not required and discovery occurs only if the judge permits it.
This section is not intended to be a manual of forms, and the sample legal documents here are limited in number. The sample legal documents are intended for illustration to familiarize the reader with the general nature of some of the documents received and issued. Many of the documents received by the Commission, such as those in Appendixes 2, 3, and 6 (Complaint, Answer, and Petition for Discretionary Review), vary significantly from case to case.
This action is brought to affirm the Citations and Notifications of penalty issued under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq., hereinafter the Act, of violations of §5(a) of the Act and the Safety and Health Regulations promulgated thereunder.
Jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon the Commission by §10(a) of the Act.
Respondent, XYZ Co., is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of §3(5) of the Act.
The principal place of business of respondent is at 123 Street, City, State, Zip Code, where it was engaged in retail sales as of the date of the alleged violations.
The violations occurred on or about June 9, 2004, at 123 Street, City, State, Zip Code (hereinafter "workplace").
As a result of an inspection at said workplace by an authorized representative of the complainant, respondent was issued three Citations and Notifications of Penalty pursuant to §9(a) of the Act.
The Citations and Notifications of Penalty, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" (consisting of one page each) identify and describe the specific violations alleged, the corresponding abatement dates fixed, and the penalties proposed.
On or about July 29, 2004, by a document dated July 26, 2004, the complainant received notification, pursuant to §10(a) of the Act, of respondent's intention to contest the aforesaid Citations and Notifications of Penalty.
The penalties proposed, as set forth in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" are appropriate within the meaning of §17(j) of the Act. The abatement dates fixed were and are reasonable.
WHEREFORE, cause having been show, complainant prays for an Order affirming the Citations and Notifications of Penalty, as aforesaid.
Respondent admits Paragraphs I, II and III.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations at Paragraph V.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations at Paragraph VII.
Respondent denies the allegations at Paragraph VIII. The penalties are excessive under § 17(j) of the Act based upon the small size of the employer, which has only twelve employees, and the low gravity of the alleged violations.
Respondent pleads the affirmative defense of "greater hazard." Abatement of the alleged violations will increase the safety risk to employees. Respondent also pleads the affirmative defense of "unpreventable employee misconduct." The alleged conditions were the result of unauthorized actions by certain employees which resulted in the conditions referred to in the alleged violations.
1. In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge failed to follow the test set forth for the Fifth Circuit’s Decision in Secretary of Labor v. RPQ Corp.for determining the existence of employee exposure. The testimony at transcript pages 25 - 45 clearly shows that John Jones was not in the zone of danger because he was on a work break and outside of the definition of the zone.
Respondent, XYZ Corp., by the undersigned representative, hereby withdraws its Notice of Contest in the case with the docket number above, pursuant to 29 CFR 2200.102 of the Rules of Procedure for the Commission.


text:
Section 274 has been misinterpreted and misapplied for decades. This article applies for tax years 2017 and prior.
Section 274 is listed under Chapter A “Income Taxes,” Chapter 1 “Normal Taxes and Surtaxes,” Subchapter B “Computation of Taxable Income,” Part IX “Items Not Deductible.” Section 274 is titled “Disallowance of certain entertainment, etc., expenses.” This is important to emphasize because one judge incorrectly believed that every topic covered under Section 274, including meals, is considered “entertainment.” That’s incorrect by the presence of “etc.” in the title.
In other words, Congress, by adding “etc.,” simply did not want to list everything covered by Section 274, which includes entertainment, amusement, recreation, gifts, foreign travel, substantiation requirements for certain items enumerated, specific exemptions for low-risk items, exemptions for non-business deductible items, entertainment facilities, attendance at conventions, qualified non-personal business use vehicles, “business” meals, entertainment tickets, additional limits on travel expenses, and limits on the deductibility of meals and entertainment.
Paragraph (a) covers entertainment by stating “[n]o deduction… shall be allowed for any item… of the type generally considered to constitute entertainment amusement, or recreation unless” there is, either “preceding or following” the entertainment, a “substantial and bona fide discussion… associated with… business.” In the subparagraphs, it discusses facilities and other special rules regarding clubs and dues.
Paragraph (c) covers foreign travel by stating “no deduction shall be allowed… for that portion of the” foreign travel not allocable to business activity.
The purpose of this author emphasizing that each paragraph starts with “no deduction shall be allowed for” is to demonstrate that each paragraph is a separate and distinct provision prohibiting a deduction but then carving our limited exceptions.
Paragraph (d) creates substantiation requirements mandating that taxpayers detail the “amount of such expense,” “time and place,” “business purpose, and “business relationship,” but that paragraph is limited to travel expenses under Paragraph (c), entertainment under Paragraph (a), and gifts under Paragraph (b); coincidentally all three preceding paragraphs. It also includes listed property under section 280F(d)(4), which covers transportation and entertainment property like facilities. In other words, the substantiation requirements do not apply to meals.
Paragraph (e) established certain specific and limited exemptions for the following: employer-provided food and beverages, expenses reported as income to others, expenses reimbursed, employer-provided entertainment, employer-incurred expenses associated with business meetings, meetings of 501(a)-exempt business leagues, items available to the public, and entertainment sold to customers at fair market rates. This was primarily a Congressional provision to clean-up Section 274 that ended-up applying in ways Congress did not intend.
Paragraph (f) clarified that non-business expenses deductible under other provisions of the Code were not to be barred by Section 274, such as mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and casualty losses.
Paragraph (g) clarified that a denial under Paragraph (a) for an entertainment facility is personal and cannot be depreciated as a business asset.
Paragraph (h) generally denies a deduction for a convention, conference, or seminar that takes place outside of North America, including cruise ships, unless certain requirements are met.
Paragraph (i) exempted “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” from the substation requirements of Paragraph (d) since that paragraph specifically included Section 280F(d)(4) listed property, such as automobiles.
Paragraph (j) covers “employee achievement awards” by stating “[n]o deduction shall be allowed… for employee achievement awards” unless, for a qualified plan, it’s less than $1600 or, for a non-qualified plan, it’s less than $400. It then defines qualified plans and establishes special rules.
Paragraph (k) covers “business meals” by stating “[n]o deduction shall be allowed… for any food or beverages” unless it is “not lavish” and “the taxpayer… is present.” That’s it. Nothing more.
Paragraph (l) places additional limits on entertainment tickets.
Paragraph (m) places additional limits on travel expenses.
would (but for this paragraph) be allowable as a deduction under this chapter.
Why would “food or beverages” be listed separately if it were an item “of a type generally considered to constitute entertainment, amusement, or recreation” under Paragraph (a)?
Each paragraph under Section 274 is separate and distinct unless it refers to another paragraph.
For meals, Section 274(k) states that no deduction is allowed for “food or beverages” unless it is “not lavish” and the “taxpayer… is present at the furnishing of” the meal. This is then followed by Section 274(n) that the “amount allowable as a deduction” for any “food or beverages” shall “not exceed 50 percent.” The term “business meals” only applies in the title of the paragraph; not in the actual statutory wording.
Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court would conclude that the use of the term “business meals” in the title of the paragraph “cannot limit the plain meaning of the text,” which would presumably allow a deduction for any meal that is in any way remotely associated with the business, including lunch expenses during working hours.
Entertainment, amusement, and recreation are separate and distinct categories from business meals. Therefore, the substantiation requirements under Section 274(d) do not apply to Section 274(k) business meals.
Furthermore, the “substantial and bona fide” business discussions requirement for entertainment expenses do not apply to Section 274(k) either.
It was when the U.S. Department of the Treasury promulgated Regulation section 1.274-2(f)(2)(i) that meals were, by implication, treated similar to entertainment. Treasury exempted meals prior to 1987, but, by inference, all meals in and after 1987 were subject to the more stringent Paragraph (a) rules that statutorily only apply to entertainment.
Treasury cited Section 274(o) as their statutory authority for extending the requirements of Paragraph (a) Entertainment to Paragraph (k) Meals. However, Congress did not grant that authority. Congress allowed Treasury to exempt the application of Paragraph (a) to other Paragraphs to which the statute, as written by Congress, extended said coverage. It did not allow Treasury to extend Paragraph (a) to other Paragraphs that Congress did not intend that to be extended to. On this basis alone, that section of the regulation is invalid. Nevertheless, there’s a secondary and equally significant legal position to invalidate the regulation.
Generally, courts will give deference to an executive department’s interpretation of a statute they are tasked with enforcing. This is referred to as Chevron deference; named after the U.S. Supreme Court case that established the rule. Chevron deference was severely weakened with 2 major cases in 2010 and 2012: Home Concrete and Intermountain.
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regulations cannot stretch the plain meaning of a statute. U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012). In other words, proper statutory interpretation requires one to look at the definition of each term in a statute. If the regulation exceeds a single word’s plain meaning, it’s invalid.
Lastly, in 2010, the United States Tax Court ruled that, if the plain meaning of a statute’s text is unambiguous, it forecloses Treasury’s ability to promulgate regulations to “fill-in gaps.” Intermountain v. C.I.R., 134 T.C. 211 (2010). Treasury only has the power to promulgate regulations that clarify ambiguity. If a statute is arguably unambiguous, any regulations purporting to interpret it are invalid as a matter of law.
In this case, the plain meaning of the text is clear and unambiguous: “[n]o deduction shall be allowed… for any food or beverages” unless it is “not lavish” and “the taxpayer… is present” coupled with the 50% cap in Paragraph (n). The clear and unambiguous extrapolation from this is that, if the meal is not lavish and the taxpayer is present, a deduction shall be allowed.
Because even federal judges have incorrectly interpreted Section 274 for decades, this author believes it’s critical to briefly examine the statutory history and development of Section 274.
The first mention of “business meals” appeared in the original enactment of Section 274 in the Revenue Act of 1962. In that newly enacted statute, Congress created an outright exception under Section 274(e) that stated “expenses for food and beverages furnished to any individual under circumstances which… are of a type generally considered to be conducive to business discussions.” Even a historical analysis of the statutory development of Section 274 makes it clear that “business means” were never intended to be covered by Section 274(a)’s coverage over entertainment, amusement, and recreation.
Any expenses for meals during regular business hours that are conducive to business or work-related discussions that are not lavish and at which the taxpayer is physically present are deductible. The classification of said expenses as “workplace goodwill development” meet the adequate disclosure requirements.
 See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 19 n.14 (1981) (quoting U.S. v. Oregon & California R.R., 164 U.S. 526, 541 (1896) and Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418, 430 (1904), and citing U.S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805) and Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R.R. v. Thomas, 132 U.S. 174, 188 (1889)).
 See INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, 502 U.S. 183, 189-90 (1991) (citing Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U.S. 714, 723 (1989); and FTC v. Mandel Bros., Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 388-89 (1959)).
 See U.S. v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 358, 386 (1805).
 See Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 331 U.S. 519, 528 (1947).
 See Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 331 U.S. 519, 529 (1947); Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004) (quoting Trainmen).
 See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 535 (2003) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (citing INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 308-09 (2001)).
 Bruns v. C.I.R., 98 T.C.M. (CCH) 30 (T.C. 2009) (“food and beverage expense deductions are further limited by section 274(k) and (n).”); Corrigan v. C.I.R., 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 1313 (T.C. 2005) (“A deduction is allowed for meals only if such expenses are not lavish and the taxpayer is present when such meals are furnished. Sec. 274(k)(1). In addition, section 274(d) limits such deductions to those that can be substantiated by adequate records or other evidence corroborating the amount of the expenditure, the time and place of the travel, entertainment, etc., the business purpose, and the business relationship of persons being entertained.”); Stroff v. C.I.R., 101 T.C.M. (CCH) 1359 (T.C. 2011) (“Section 274(d) provides more stringent substantiation requirements in the case of expenditures or the use of property that may readily serve personal as well as business purposes. Such expenditures or property use include those for entertainment, including meals, or automobile use.”); Westby v. C.I.R., T.C.M. (RIA) 2004-179 (T.C. 2004) (“Section 274 supersedes the Cohan rule... and imposes more stringent substantiation requirements for travel, meals and entertainment, gifts, and with respect to any listed property as defined in section 280F(d)(4).”); Hefti v. C.I.R., 65 T.C.M. (CCH) 2241 (T.C. 1993) (“In order to take a deduction under section 162 for travel or entertainment, petitioners must meet the requirements set out in section 274(d) and (k). Section 274(d) requires that the taxpayer have adequate records or sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement of the amount of the expense, the time and place of the expense, the business purpose of the expense, and business relationship. Petitioners have met these requirements. Section 274(k) requires that the expense not be lavish and that the taxpayer be present at the furnishing of the food or beverage.”); Dunkelberger v. C.I.R., 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 1567 (T.C. 1992) (“In addition to meeting substantiation requirements, we must also consider the impact of section 274(k) and (n).”).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.