Search form

Tax Treatment of Holiday Gifts to Employees

By Bruce H. Schwartz
  • December 5, 2013

Holiday gifts, bonuses and awards to employees may have important tax implications for employers. As a general rule, gifts and awards (whether in cash or otherwise) an employer gives to employees are considered additional W-2 wages, subject to payroll and income taxes. In certain circumstances, however, the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) provides that non-cash gifts to employees can be treated as tax-free.

Employee gifts in the form of cash or gift certificates/coupons, regardless of the amount, are always treated by the Internal Revenue Service as W-2 “wages” subject to withholding taxes. In the case of a gift certificate or coupon, the tax applies to the face value of the certificate/coupon.

Noncash gifts and awards given to employees can be treated as tax-free only if the gift or award can be characterized as a “de minimis fringe benefit” under Section 132 of the Code, or qualifies as an “employee achievement award” under Section 274(j) of the Code. Employee achievement awards may be made either as length-of-service awards or as safety awards. 

De Minimis Fringe Benefit 

If an award or prize is given in a form other than cash or a gift certificate/coupon and if the value is not large, it probably can be characterized as a non-taxable “de minimis fringe benefit.” The IRS defines this as any property or service provided to an employee that has so little value (taking into account how frequently similar benefits are provided to all employees) that accounting for it would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable. The value of the benefit is determined by the frequency with which it is provided to each employee, or, if this is not administratively practical, by the frequency with which it is provided to the workforce as a whole.

The law does not specify a dollar threshold for benefits to qualify as de minimis. The determination will depend on the facts and circumstances. The IRS has not given any guidance, formal or informal, for determining when the value of a non-cash gift or award may become too large to qualify as a de minimis fringe benefit. 

The de minimis fringe benefit definition takes into account the frequency with which the benefit, and all similar benefits, is provided. Generally, that frequency is judged on an employee-by-employee basis. But if it would be administratively difficult for an employer to monitor the frequency with which individual employees take advantage of a benefit, the frequency with which similar fringes are provided is determined by reference to the workforce as a whole.

The IRS has indicated that the following items may be treated as de minimis benefits if they are occasional:

  • Personal use of photocopier (with restrictions)
  • Group meals, employee picnics
  • Theater or sporting event tickets
  • Coffee, doughnuts, or soft drinks
  • Flowers or fruit for special circumstances
  • Local telephone calls
  • Traditional birthday or holiday gifts (not cash) with a low fair market value

The tax implications of holiday gifts are simple to address and employers should ensure such remuneration are taken into account for purposes of year-end W-2s and payroll period reporting. Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to discuss this and other workplace issues. 

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: We inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed therein. (The foregoing disclaimer has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury regulations governing tax practitioners.)

©2013 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 7, 2017

Employee Benefits Newsletter – Summer/Fall 2017

September 7, 2017

In this issue: Proving Loss Causation in Breach of Fiduciary Claims – The Split Widens. Analysis of recent litigation trends involving loss causation, an important burden-of-proof issue in ERISA fiduciary claims. Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits in Mergers and Acquisitions. A summary of the most significant compensation... Read More

July 27, 2017

Increase in 2017 Service Contract Act Health & Welfare Rate; Lower Rate for Contracts Covered by Federal Paid Sick Leave EO

July 27, 2017

The U.S. Department of Labor has released its annual memorandum with the rate increase for Service Contract Act (SCA) Health and Welfare (H&W) Fringe Benefits. The new rate of $4.41 per hour (up from the 2015-2016 rate of $4.27 per hour) is required in all government contract bids or other service contracts awarded on or after August... Read More

July 19, 2017

U.S. Supreme Court Round Up – 2016-2017

July 19, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court term that ended June 2017 included a number of decisions important to workplace law, as well as the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Although functioning with only eight justices for most of the 2016-2017 term, the Court managed to achieve a strong consensus in each of its employment-related rulings.... Read More

Related Practices