Consider, for example, the case of a safety achievement award to an eligible employee that is not a qualified plan award, and that costs the employer $500; assume that no other employee achievement awards were made to the same employee during the taxable year, and that safety achievement awards were not awarded during the year to more than 10 percent of eligible employees of the employer. The employer's deduction is limited to $400. The amount includible in gross income by the employee is the greater of (1) $100 (the difference between the item's cost and the deduction limitation), or (2) the amount by which the item's fair market value exceeds the deduction limitation. If the fair market value equals, for example, $475, then $100 is includible in the employee's income. If the fair market value equals $600, then $200 is includible in the employee's income.

Except to the extent that the new section 74(c) exclusion or section 132(e)(1) applies, the fair market value of an employee award (whether or not satisfying the definition of an employee achievement award) is includible in the employee's gross income under section 61, and is not excludable under section 74 (as amended by the Act). Also, the Act amends section 102 to provide explicitly that the section 102 exclusion for gifts does not apply to any amount transferred by or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee. The fair market value of an employee award (or any portion thereof) that is not excludable from gross income must be included by the employer on the employee's Form W-2, as was required under prior law.

Any amount of an employee achievement award that is excludable from gross income under the Act also is excludable from wages or compensation for employment tax (e.g., FICA tax) purposes and is excludable from the social security benefit base.

The Act does not modify Code section 132(e)(1), under which de minimis fringe benefits are excluded from gross income. Thus, an employee award is not includible in income if its fair market value, after taking into account the frequency with which similar benefits are provided by the employer to the employer's employees, is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable. For example, the section 132(e)(1) exclusion would apply with respect to a pin or similar item with a value of $15 awarded to an employee on joining a business, on completing six months' employment, or on completing a probationary employment period.

As noted above, for purposes of section 274 (as modified by the Act), an employee award that is excludable under section 132(e)(1) is disregarded in applying the rules regarding how frequently an individual may receive an excludable length of service award, or how many employees of an employer may receive an excludable safety achievement award in the same taxable year. Under appropriate circumstances, however, the fact that an employer makes a practice of giving its employees length of service or safety achievement awards that qualify under section 74 and 274 may affect the question of whether other items given to such employees (particularly if given by reason of length of service or safety achievement) qualify as de minimis fringe benefits under section 132(e)(1).

The question of whether it is unreasonable or administratively impracticable (within the meaning of sec. 132(e)(1)) to account for an item may be affected by the existence of a program whereby the taxpayer regularly accounts for other like items and complies with the statutory reporting requirements. Moreover, in some cases the fact that a particular employee receives items having the maximum fair market value consistent, respectively, with the employee achievement award and the de minimis fringe benefit exclusions may suggest that the employer's practice is not de minimis. This is particularly so when employee awards and other items, purportedly within the scope of section 132(e)(1), are provided to the same individual in the same year.

The Congress intended that the exclusion under section 132(e)(1) for a de minimis fringe benefit is to apply, under appropriate circumstances, to traditional retirement gifts presented to an employee on his or her retirement after completing lengthy service, even if the section 74(c) exclusion for length of service awards does not apply because the employee received such an award within the prior four years. In considering whether an item presented upon retirement so qualifies, the duration of the employee's tenure with the employer generally has relevance. For example, in the case of an employee who has worked for an employer for 25 years, a retirement gift of a gold watch may qualify for exclusion as a de minimis fringe benefit even though gold watches given throughout the period of employment would not so qualify for that exclusion.

Effective Date

The provisions relating to the tax treatment of prizes and awards are effective for prizes and awards granted after December 31, 1986.

Revenue Effect

The provisions relating to the tax treatment of prizes and awards are estimated to decrease fiscal year budget receipts by $21 million in 1987, $59 million in 1988, $63 million in 1989, $66 million in 1990, and $69 million in 1991.

3. Scholarships and fellowships (sec. 123 of the Act and sec. 117 of the Code) 19

In general

Prior Law

Prior law generally provided an unlimited exclusion from gross income for (1) amounts received by a degree candidate as a scholarship at an educational institution (described in sec. 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)), or as a fellowship grant, and (2) incidental amounts received by such individual and spent for travel, research, clerical help, or equipment (sec. 117). The term scholarship meant an amount paid or allowed to, or for the benefit of, a student to aid in pursuing

19 For legislative background of the provision, see: H.R. 3838, as reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on December 7, 1985, sec. 123; H.Rep. 99-426, pp. 99-103; and H.Rep. 99-841, Vol. II (September 18, 1986), pp. 14-17 (Conference Report).

studies; similarly, a fellowship grant was defined as an amount paid or allowed to, or for the benefit of, an individual to aid in pursuing studies or research (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.117-3).

In the case of an individual who was not a candidate for a degree, the prior-law exclusion was available only if the grantor of the scholarship or fellowship was an educational institution or other tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3), a foreign government, certain international organizations, or a Federal, State, or local government agency. The prior-law exclusion for a nondegree candidate in any one year could not exceed $300 times the number of months in the year for which the recipient received scholarship or fellowship grant amounts, and no further exclusion was allowed after the nondegree candidate had claimed exclusions for a total of 36 months (i.e., a maximum lifetime exclusion of $10,800). However, this dollar limitation did not apply to that portion of the scholarship or fellowship received by the nondegree candidate for travel, research, clerical help, or equipment.

Under prior and present law, an educational institution is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) if it normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on. This definition encompasses primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and technical schools, mechanical schools, and similar institutions, but does not include noneducational institutions, on-the-job training, correspondence schools, and so forth (Treas. Reg. secs. 1.1173(b); 1.151-3(c)). Under prior law, the term candidate for a degree was defined as (1) an undergraduate or graduate student at a college or university who was pursuing studies or conducting research to meet the requirements for an academic or professional degree and (2) a student who received a scholarship for study at a secondary school or other educational institution (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1173(e)).

Payments for services

Under prior and present law, amounts paid to an individual to enable him or her to pursue studies or research are not excludable from income if they represent compensation for past, present, or future services, or if the studies or research are primarily for the benefit of the grantor or are under the direction or supervision of the grantor (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.117-4(c)). These regulations have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which described excludable grants as "relatively disinterested, 'no-strings' educational grants, with no requirement of any substantial quid pro quo from the recipients" (Bingler v. Johnson, 394 U.S. 741 (1969)).

In the case of degree candidates, prior law also specifically provided that the exclusion did not apply to any portion of an otherwise qualifying scholarship or fellowship grant that represented payment for teaching, research, or other services in the nature of part-time employment required as a condition of receiving the scholarship or fellowship grant (prior-law sec. 117(b)(1)). However, an exception under prior law provided that such services would not be treated as employment for this purpose if all degree candidates had to perform such services; in that case, the recipient could ex

clude the portion of the scholarship or fellowship grant representing compensation for such services.

Under another prior-law exception, amounts received by an individual as a grant under a Federal program that would be excludable from gross income as a scholarship or fellowship grant, but for the fact that the recipient must perform future services as a Federal employee, were not includible in gross income if the individual established that the amount was used for qualified tuition and related expenses (prior-law sec. 117(c)).

Tuition reduction plans

Section 117(d) provides that a reduction in tuition provided to an employee of an educational institution is excluded from gross income if (1) the tuition is for education below the graduate level provided by the employer or by another educational institution; (2) the education is provided to a current or retired employee, a spouse or dependent child of either, or to a widow(er) or dependent children of a deceased employee; and (3) certain nondiscrimination requirements are met. P.L. 98-611 provided that, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1983 and ending on or before December 31, 1985, the section 117(d) exclusion also applied to qualified tuition reduction for graduate-level education provided by an educational institution to a graduate student who was employed by that institution in teaching or research activities (Code sec. 127(c)(8)).

Reasons for Change

By extending the exclusion for scholarships or fellowship grants to cover amounts used by degree candidates for regular living expenses (such as meals and lodging), prior law provided a tax benefit not directly related to educational activities. By contrast, students who are not scholarship recipients must pay for such expenses out of after-tax dollars, just as individuals who are not students must pay for their food and housing costs out of wages or other earnings that are includible in income. The Congress concluded that the exclusion for scholarships should be targeted specifically for the purpose of educational benefits, and should not encompass other items that would otherwise constitute nondeductible personal expenses. The Congress also determined that, in the case of grants to nondegree candidates for travel, research, etc., that would be deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses, an exclusion for such expenses is not needed, and that an exclusion is not appropriate if the expenses would not be deductible.

In addition, under the Act, the Congress has increased the tax threshold, i.e., the income level at which individuals become subject to tax. Thus, the receipt of a nonexcludable scholarship amount by a student without other significant income will not result in tax liability so long as the individual's total income does not exceed the personal exemption (if available) and either the increased standard deduction under the Act or the taxpayer's itemized deductions. Under the Act, any nonexcludable amount of a scholarship or fellowship grant is treated as earned income, so that such amount can be offset by the recipient's standard deduction

even if the recipient can be claimed as a dependent on his or her parents' return.

Under prior law, controversies arose between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service over whether a particular stipend made in an educational setting constituted a scholarship or compensation for services. In particular, numerous court cases have involved resident physicians and graduate teaching fellows who have soughtoften notwithstanding substantial case authority to the contraryto exclude from income payments received for caring for hospitalized patients, for teaching undergraduate college students, or for doing research which inures to the benefit of the grantor.20 The limitation on the section 117 exclusion made by the Act, and the repeal of the special rule relating to degree candidates who must perform services as a condition of receiving a degree, should lessen these problems of complexity, uncertainty of tax treatment, and controversy.

The Congress concluded that the section 117 exclusion should not apply to amounts representing payment for teaching, research, or other services by a student, whether or not required as a condition for receiving a scholarship or tuition reduction, and that this result should apply whether the compensation takes the form of cash, which the student can use to pay tuition, or of a tuition reduction, pursuant to which there is no exchange of cash for payment of tuition. Thus, where cash stipends received by a student who performs services would not be excludable under the Act as a scholarship even if the stipend is used to pay tuition, the Congress believed that the exclusion should not become available merely because the compensation takes the form of a tuition reduction otherwise qualifying under section 117(d). The Congress concluded, consistently with the overall objectives of the Act, that principles of fairness require that all compensation should be given the same tax treatment; that is, some individuals (e.g., students who perform teaching services for universities) should not receive more favorable tax treatment of their compensation than all other individuals who earn wages.

The Congress concluded that it was inappropriate under prior law for recipients of certain Federal grants who were required to perform future services as Federal employees to obtain special tax treatment which was not available to recipients of other types of grants who were required to perform services as a condition of receiving the grants. Thus, under the Act, the general exclusion rule and the limitations apply equally to all grant recipients.

20 As the U.S. Tax Court stated in one case: "Interns and residents have been flooding the courts for years seeking to have their remuneration declared a 'fellowship grant' and hence partially excludable from income. They have advanced such illuminating arguments as they could have earned more elsewhere and they were enjoying a learning experience so therefore what they did receive must have been a grant. They have been almost universally unsuccessful and deservedly so. Why the amounts received by a young doctor just out of school should be treated differently from the amounts received by a young lawyer, engineer, or business school graduate has never been made clear." (Zonkerman v. Comm'r, 36 T.C.M. 6, 9 (1977), aff'd (4th Cir. 1978))