So if you get $10 worth of perk (assuming it's something you'd buy anyway), it only actually costs you somewhere between $5-8 depending on your tax bracket.
It seems to me like there isn't any reason for a tax code to allow not paying taxes if the company is calling a transfer of money to the employee for the purpose of buying food as a "perk", and yet tax the same money if it's called a "salary".
I'm coming at this from the position that the law must say, if you're giving a person access to a cash spending account that lets them buy things for themselves but not giving them the cash directly, that still counts as income. Is that true? If it's not true, why isn't everyone taking advantage of the loophole? If it is, why is lunch a special case?