The Tax Home Doctrine: Fifty-Five Years of Confusion

Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have always allowed taxpayers to deduct business expenses from their gross income before a personal income tax is imposed. Under certain circumstances, traveling expenses, such as amounts expended by taxpayers for travel fares, meals, and lodging, are deductible as business expenses. The United States Supreme Court has held that a taxpayer's traveling expenses must meet three conditions to be deductible under this section: the traveling expenses must be reasonable and necessary, directly related to the pursuit of business, and incurred while away from home. The third condition poses the most problems for taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service, and the courts. Problems arise because the word "home" is the subject of differing interpretations. While some courts give "home" its ordinary meaning—principal place of residence—the Internal Revenue Service and many other courts have adopted the tax home doctrine, which interprets "home" as used in section 162(a)(2) to mean place of employment. The legislative history of section 162(a)(2) reveals the legislative intent concerning the traveling expense language: "home" means principal place of residence. Despite this legislative purpose to give "home" its ordinary meaning, rulings by the Tax Court, the Internal Revenue Service, and the courts of appeals have, instead, applied the tax home doctrine. As a result, the doctrine promotes litigation, wastes time, and fosters uncertainty. Its use causes increased administrative complexity and draws attention from the more important requirement that traveling expenses must be necessitated by the exigencies of business rather than the personal desires of the taxpayer. This Comment recommends that Congress or the Supreme Court should expressly reject the tax home doctrine and clearly indicate that the word "home" means principal place of residence. Abandonment of the doctrine would eliminate these unnecessary problems and would bring needed uniformity and certainty to the traveling expense deduction area of the tax laws.

Publication Details

Journal
eYLS (Yale Law School)
Published
2025-03-27
Primary Topic
Magnetic confinement fusion research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Tax Home Doctrine: Fifty-Five Years of Confusion

eYLS (Yale Law School)
Magnetic confinement fusion research
article

The Tax Home Doctrine: Fifty-Five Years of Confusion

article en

Abstract

Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have always allowed taxpayers to deduct business expenses from their gross income before a personal income tax is imposed. Under certain circumstances, traveling expenses, such as amounts expended by taxpayers for travel fares, meals, and lodging, are deductible as business expenses. The United States Supreme Court has held that a taxpayer's traveling expenses must meet three conditions to be deductible under this section: the traveling expenses must be reasonable and necessary, directly related to the pursuit of business, and incurred while away from home. The third condition poses the most problems for taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service, and the courts. Problems arise because the word "home" is the subject of differing interpretations. While some courts give "home" its ordinary meaning—principal place of residence—the Internal Revenue Service and many other courts have adopted the tax home doctrine, which interprets "home" as used in section 162(a)(2) to mean place of employment. The legislative history of section 162(a)(2) reveals the legislative intent concerning the traveling expense language: "home" means principal place of residence. Despite this legislative purpose to give "home" its ordinary meaning, rulings by the Tax Court, the Internal Revenue Service, and the courts of appeals have, instead, applied the tax home doctrine. As a result, the doctrine promotes litigation, wastes time, and fosters uncertainty. Its use causes increased administrative complexity and draws attention from the more important requirement that traveling expenses must be necessitated by the exigencies of business rather than the personal desires of the taxpayer. This Comment recommends that Congress or the Supreme Court should expressly reject the tax home doctrine and clearly indicate that the word "home" means principal place of residence. Abandonment of the doctrine would eliminate these unnecessary problems and would bring needed uniformity and certainty to the traveling expense deduction area of the tax laws.

eYLS (Yale Law School)
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
Magnetic confinement fusion research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.