Instead of using the $25 credit to buy dinner and have it delivered to the office, some Meta staff opted to buy items like toothpaste and wine glasses with the credit
You can exclude any occasional meal you provide to an employee if it has so little value (taking into account how frequently you provide meals to your employees) that accounting for it would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable. The exclusion applies, for example, to the following items.
Coffee, doughnuts, or soft drinks.
Occasional meals or meal money provided to enable an employee to work overtime. However, the exclusion doesn't apply to meal money figured on the basis of hours worked (for example, $2.00 per hour for each hour over 8 hours), or meals or meal money provided on a regular or routine basis.
Occasional parties or picnics for employees and their guests.
Meta can exclude the occasional meal enabling a company to work overtime from tax reporting as benefits.
However, once the employee is not using it in a way that qualifies as specified under De Minimis Meals, then it gets into an actual taxable bonus.
The employees that were doing this over a long period of time were causing Meta to inadvertently commit tax fraud. The accounting department probably didn't like that once they found out about it.
I think I wasn't clear. What I meant, is that if I am working late, I am entitled to the voucher. If I get some toothpaste instead of eating ... is that theft?? I do agree that if you aren't working late, you aren't entitled to the voucher and that is clear theft. I'm talking about spending the money that you are entitled to on something different than the purpose of the money.
I suspect in those cases, to most people, it is no different than saving for a trip and using the money on different expenses for _reasons_. If it is the case that people were entitled to the money, but then spent it on non-food, asserting that it is theft is just people trying to control people. You gave them money, they spent it on something you don't agree with, so you fire them. That's bullshit, you gave them the money.
I also suspect that these are the same people that give beggars cash and complain when the beggar buys some shampoo and a beer instead of food.
Maybe there is a context problem here from people not familiar with business expenses or these types of employee perk programs.
Every program of this nature that I have had was clear that they arent giving you money, but offering to pay for a specific thing. There are clear rules for what they are willing to pay for and when.
I dont think it is plausible these purchases happened by mistake.
> Every program of this nature that I have had was clear that they arent giving you money, but offering to pay for a specific thing. There are clear rules for what they are willing to pay for and when.
The point of the program is to keep the kids at work longer than they'd normally stay. If you understand that and are working late, why would you not pocket the money?
I don't understand the question. They have a food program for people who stay late. They don't have a cash or toothpaste program for people to stay late. It seems very clear to me.
My work has a free cab home program. That doesn't mean I can skip the cab and wander the halls taking staplers, or use my business travel card for beer.
I might argue that "hey, these things are equal value" but it doesn't matter. It wasn't what was offered.
I would agree with that statement, I just dont think it describes this situation. It was never the employees money. It was permission to spend company money on food.
Giving an employee keys to the safe is not the same as giving them the contents.
Depends on how it was worded and/or explained to the employee. Was it: "if you stay late, the company gives you an extra 25 bucks so you can eat dinner at work" or "if you stay late, you are given a 25 bucks stipend that can only be used for food"?
The former sounds like extra money that I can do whatever I want with, while the latter is much more explicit.
It comes down to English. There's not really an easy way to say, "Here's a voucher that can only be used for food" other than spelling it out like I just did. Instead, it is most likely presented like this during onboarding (IIRC): "If you work late, the company gives you a voucher so you can eat dinner." Notice the entire lack of mentioning that you can _only_ use it on dinner.
Instead of using the $25 credit to buy dinner and have it delivered to the office, some Meta staff opted to buy items like toothpaste and wine glasses with the credit