Opinion ID: 494606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wording of the Regulations

Text: 14 The regulations implementing the reimbursement exclusion explain that 15 Reimbursements for normal household living expenses such as rent or mortgage, personal clothing, of [sic] food eaten at home are a gain or benefit and, therefore, are not excluded. 16 7 C.F.R. 273.9(c)(5) (1986). Appellants claim that the phrase food eaten at home in this passage creates a presumption that expenses related to food eatenaway from home are not normal. Because New York's restaurant allowance is, by definition, intended to reimburse recipients for the cost of meals prepared away from home, appellants read the regulations as dictating its exclusion. The Secretary acknowledges that the restaurant allowance is awarded primarily to families eating their meals away from home, but he views the phrase eaten at home only to acknowledge that some reimbursements for food eaten away from home have been explicitly excluded from income. He directs attention to reimbursements for meals eaten at work as one example of this. 7 C.F.R. 273.9(c)(5)(i). But to demonstrate that not all reimbursements for meals eaten away from home are excluded from the calculation of income, the Secretary points to the inclusion of financial aid received by college students for meals eaten at school. See 7 C.F.R. 273.9(c)(5)(iv). Given the ambiguity as to whether the term food eaten at home, is exclusive, i.e., describes the only food reimbursements that are not excluded from income, we cannot say that the Secretary's reading is plainly inconsistent with the text of the regulations.