objective standard. See. e.g., Jeppsen v. Commissioner, 128 F.3d 1410, 1418 (10th Cir. 1997) (in determining whether taxpayer qualifies for income tax deduction for theft loss, reasonableness of taxpayer’s prospect of recovering stolen assets is primarily tested objectively rather than by taxpayer’s subjective assessment of his own prospect of recovery). De Minimis Fringe Benefits Also excluded by § 132(a) from gross income are “de minimis fringe benefits,” § 132(a)(4), defined in § 132(e) as “any property or services the value of which is (after taking into account the frequency with which similar fringes are provided by the employer to the employer’s employees) so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively imprac tes, 220 Ct.Cl. 20, 597 F.2d 1348, 1354 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The burden is on American, as the refund
holding that the employer was not required to withhold or pay fica and futa taxes in 1971 with respect to the free meals it furnished its employees because the employer could not have told from the relevant statutes and regulations that the free meals were remuneration and thus wages holding that the value of meals and lodging that are tax exempt under  119 is excluded from wages under the lhwca holding that nothing in the flsa bars an employer from contracting with his employees to pay them the same wages that they received previously holding that a claim was for a tax refund where the plaintiff alleged that her employer withheld its own portion of fica taxes from her paychecks holding that the employer was not required to withhold income tax from its payments of moving expenses to its existing employees where the state of the law in 1961 gave the employer no reason to suspect that such payments constituted wages