Coming And Going RuleEdit

The Coming And Going Rule is a long-standing principle in personal income tax policy that draws a bright line between everyday travel and deductible business travel. At its core, the rule says that the ordinary commute from home to a fixed workplace is a personal expense, not a business expense, and therefore not deductible. It sits at the intersection of tax fairness, administrative simplicity, and the evolving nature of work. Proponents argue that it prevents a tax subsidy for routine, predictable distances traveled for work, while critics contend that the rule sometimes misreads modern work arrangements and the real costs people bear to stay employed. The topic is frequently discussed in the context of the broader tax code provisions governing travel, lodging, and business deductions, such as the rules around travel expenses and home office deduction.

Overview and scope

The rule operates within the framework of the federal income tax system in the United States and is connected to several internal tax concepts, including the distinction between commuting and business travel, as well as the statutory provisions that govern what counts as a deductible business expense under Internal Revenue Code sections like 162 and 212. In practice, courts and the Internal Revenue Service rely on the distinction between the ordinary home-to-work trip and travel that is undertaken for business purposes away from the normal site of employment. When the employee is merely moving between home and a established place of work, the costs are treated as non-deductible commuting expenses. When the trip is away from home for substantial business reasons, lodging and transportation may be deductible under the right conditions. See the discussions of away from home travel and business travel for the nuanced criteria involved.

The rule has implications for workers across many sectors, including those who drive between multiple job sites, those who relocate temporarily for a project, and employees whose assignments push them toward locations that are far from their primary home base. It also interacts with other provisions that determine what counts as ordinary and necessary business expenses, and it is a common subject of audits and taxpayer guidance published by the IRS and tax policy scholars.

How the rule works in practice

Core principle: commuting from home to a regular, fixed workplace is not deductible as a business expense. This is the backbone of the rule and is intended to prevent a tax deduction for routine, predictable travel that most workers must bear as a condition of employment.
Distinguishing away-from-home travel: if a worker travels to a location that is not the employee’s regular workplace and stays there overnight or for an extended period to perform duties, the travel and lodging can be treated as deductible business expenses, subject to the normal substantiation requirements. This is often described in terms of an “away from home” test and is a key moment where the rule yields to business necessity.
Temporary vs. indefinite assignments: the deductibility of travel expenses can hinge on how temporary the assignment is. Short-term projects or assignments that end within a reasonable timeframe may open the door to deductible travel costs if they meet the other criteria for business travel, while long-term, indefinite relocations can change the characterization of the trip.
Related costs and limitations: meals while traveling, lodging, and transportation to a business site can be deductible in certain situations, but only when they satisfy the applicable tests for ordinary and necessary business expenses and are not merely part of an employee’s routine commuting pattern. See meals deduction, lodging deduction, and transportation deduction for related defenses and limitations.
Changes in the modern economy: the rise of remote work, telecommuting, and flexible schedules has sparked discussions about whether the line between commuting and business travel should be redrawn. Supporters of preserving the rule emphasize clarity and fairness, while critics argue that the tax code should better reflect how people work today. See debates surrounding remote work and tax policy adaptation for context.

History, rationale, and administration

The coming-and-going distinction has roots in the general tax policy aim of separating personal costs from business costs. Historically, this separation helped minimize disputes about when a cost should be borne by an individual versus being a legitimate business expense. Administratively, a bright-line rule reduces the complexity of tax returns and audits, since taxpayers and tax authorities can rely on a straightforward test rather than adjudicating a broad spectrum of travel circumstances.

From a policy standpoint, the rule aligns with a philosophy of encouraging work effort and personal responsibility. It avoids subsidizing routine transportation costs that taxpayers would incur regardless of their employment relationship. It also limits the potential for abuse, where taxpayers might try to claim ever-larger deductions for ordinary travel costs by mischaracterizing daily commutes as business travel.

The rule coexists with other provisions that govern travel, lodging, and meals. The IRS publishes guidance on what counts as travel away from home, what substantiation is required, and how to treat mixed purposes for a given trip. See IRS guidance and Publication 463 for the governing framework, and Section 162(a) and Section 212 of the Internal Revenue Code for the statutory anchors of business expenses.

Controversies and policy debates

Support for the rule: Advocates argue that preserving a clear cutoff between commuting and business travel reduces complexity and protects the tax base from subsidizing ordinary costs that should be borne by the individual. They emphasize that the rule mirrors real-world budgeting and reduces opportunities for gaming the system, helping to keep the code fair and predictable for workers and employers alike.
Critiques from modern work patterns: Critics note that the rule can seem out of step with today’s work arrangements, including remote work, frequent travel across multiple sites, and the use of portable bases of operation. They argue that the line between home, office, and mobile work sites can be blurry, and that the tax code should better reflect the costs people incur to stay productive in a modern economy. In this view, expanding or reinterpreting business travel allowances could reduce distortions and support flexible labor arrangements.
Policy alternatives debated: Among the ideas discussed are reforming or augmenting the rules around home offices, temporary assignments, and non-standard work locations; exploring targeted deductions for essential remote-work costs; or adopting a standardized deduction for certain categories of work-related travel to reduce administrative burden while preserving fairness. Proposals vary in their design and political appeal, with debates often focusing on simplicity, equity, and the appropriate size of the tax base.
How the debate is framed politically: From a fiscal-policy perspective, the right-leaning argument tends to emphasize efficiency, simplicity, and restraint in tax expenditures, while opponents argue for modernization to reflect contemporary labor markets and the needs of workers. The discussion often touches on how best to calibrate incentives for mobility, remote work, and investment in human capital, without inflating the tax code into a sprawling subsidy for everyday travel.

Global and comparative context

Systems in other countries handle travel deductions differently, reflecting diverse tax philosophies and administrative approaches. Some jurisdictions provide broader allowances for business-related travel or offer more generous home-office provisions, while others maintain strict rules similar to the coming-and-going principle. Readers may examine comparative tax policy discussions under international tax and comparative tax systems to understand how these choices shape labor costs, corporate competitiveness, and government revenue.