Mileage and Expense Reimbursement Laws by State (2026)

There is no federal duty to reimburse business expenses — the FLSA only stops kickbacks that drop wages below the minimum.

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not contain a positive expense-reimbursement requirement. 29 CFR §531.35 protects only the minimum-wage and overtime floor; everything above that floor is state law.

Ten jurisdictions go further with an affirmative reimbursement duty: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, the District of Columbia, and the City of Seattle. California Labor Code §2802 is the broadest — it indemnifies the employee for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred ... in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties," recovers attorney's fees under §2802(c), and accrues 10% interest from the date the expense was incurred under §2802(b).

The IRS standard mileage rate for 2026 is 72.5¢ per business mile (IRS Notice 2026-10, IR-2025-128, Dec. 29, 2025). That number is a safe-harbor tax treatment under an accountable plan, not a federally mandated reimbursement floor. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025), the §67(g) suspension of miscellaneous itemized deductions is permanent — W-2 employees can no longer deduct unreimbursed business expenses, narrowing the path to the reimbursement claim itself.

The post-pandemic class actions reshaped the surface. Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023), rejected the "the government caused the work-from-home, not us" defense under §2802. Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01892 (N.D. Cal.), settled for $950,000 on January 23, 2024, covering Amazon's California corporate employees who incurred home-internet costs during COVID stay-home orders.

Skip to the state-by-state table →

Quick reference

Federal floor: 29 CFR §531.35 — wages must be paid "finally and unconditionally" or "free and clear"; expense kickbacks violate the FLSA only when they cut into the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr) or the overtime premium.
No federal mileage requirement: the IRS standard rate is a tax safe-harbor under an accountable plan (26 CFR §1.62-2), not a reimbursement duty.
2026 IRS standard rates: 72.5¢/mile business; 20.5¢/mile medical and moving (active-duty military); 14¢/mile charitable (fixed by statute at 26 USC §170(i)).
2026 FAVR cap: $61,700 maximum standard automobile cost (IRS Notice 2026-10).
Broadest affirmative duty: California Labor Code §2802 — "all necessary expenditures or losses"; attorney's fees mandatory; 10% interest from date of expense.
Second-broadest: 820 ILCS 115/9.5 (effective January 1, 2019) — "all necessary expenditures or losses ... within the employee's scope of employment and directly related to services performed for the employer."
Field Code lineage: Montana (MCA §39-2-701), North Dakota (NDCC §34-02-01), South Dakota (SDCL §60-2-1) carry textually identical indemnification language to §2802.
Massachusetts: 454 CMR 27.04(4) requires reimbursement of travel-related transportation expenses; enforcement through the Wage Act (MGL c.149 §148) carries treble damages.
Anchor cases: Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 554 (Cal. 2007); Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014); Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
Statute of limitations: 3 years on §2802 under CCP §338(a); 4 years when repackaged as a UCL claim under Bus. & Prof. Code §17208.
No federal mileage deduction for W-2 employees: IRC §67(g) permanently extended by OBBBA (2025); the deduction is gone.

The 5 most expensive reimbursement mistakes

Treating §2802 as a wage-and-hour formality rather than a fee-shifting statute. California Labor Code §2802(c) defines "necessary expenditures or losses" to include "all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section." The fee-shifting is one-way: prevailing employees recover fees; prevailing employers do not. §2802(b) layers 10% interest accruing from the date the expense was incurred (not the date of judgment) under Code of Civil Procedure §685.010. Multi-year backpay periods compound this materially — most California reimbursement settlements end up multiples of the naked unreimbursed-cost figure.
Assuming the employer can refuse to reimburse personal cell-phone use because the employee had no out-of-pocket marginal cost. Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014), held that "an employee need only show that he or she was required to use a personal cell phone to make work-related calls, and he or she was not reimbursed" — regardless of whether the employee was on an unlimited plan, whether someone else paid the bill, or whether the marginal cost was zero. The reimbursement is owed for the use of the personal phone for work, not for the incremental dollar.
Relying on a lump-sum salary or commission enhancement without the Gattuso apportionment. Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 554 (Cal. 2007), permits three reimbursement methods — actual expense, mileage rate, or lump-sum salary/commission enhancement — but requires the lump-sum employer to (i) identify which portion of the compensation is the expense reimbursement, and (ii) prove the amount is sufficient to cover actual expenses. The employee retains the right to challenge any method's adequacy. Almost no California employer uses the lump-sum option in practice; the IRS rate × business miles is the de facto safe harbor.
Treating remote-work setup costs as the government's problem, not the employer's. Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023), rejected IBM's argument that Governor Newsom's stay-home order — not IBM — caused the employees' home-office expenses. The court held §2802's obligation "does not turn on whether the employer's order was the proximate cause of the expenses"; it turns on whether the expenses were "actually due to performance of the employee's duties." Home internet, headsets, monitors, and required equipment incurred during the COVID stay-home period are reimbursable under §2802. Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01892 (N.D. Cal.), settled on January 23, 2024 for $950,000 on this theory.
Reimbursing above the IRS rate without substantiating actual costs. Under 26 CFR §1.62-2, an accountable plan keeps reimbursement out of W-2 wages if (a) the expense has a business connection, (b) the employee substantiates the expense within a reasonable time, and (c) the employee returns any excess within a reasonable time. Reimbursement at or below the IRS standard mileage rate is presumed reasonable; reimbursement above the rate must be substantiated by actual cost or the excess is W-2 wages subject to payroll tax. The W-2 employee has no offsetting deduction: under IRC §67(g) — made permanent by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025) — miscellaneous itemized deductions for unreimbursed business expenses are gone.

The federal floor — no affirmative reimbursement duty

29 CFR §531.35 — the "free and clear" kickback rule

The load-bearing federal regulation. Wages must be paid "finally and unconditionally" or "free and clear." 29 CFR §531.35 provides:

"Whether in cash or in facilities, 'wages' cannot be considered to have been paid by the employer and received by the employee unless they are paid finally and unconditionally or 'free and clear.' The wage requirements of the Act will not be met where the employee 'kicks-back' directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for the employer's benefit the whole or part of the wage delivered to the employee."

The regulation's tool-of-trade example sits at the operational core:

"If it is a requirement of the employer that the employee must provide tools of the trade which will be used in or are specifically required for the performance of the employer's particular work, there would be a violation of the Act in any workweek when the cost of such tools purchased by the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be paid under the Act."

At the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, the kickback rule bites only on low-wage workers whose work-driven expenses (uniforms, tools, required equipment, personal-vehicle mileage) push effective wages below $7.25/hr after netting out the unreimbursed spend. Salaried workers and higher-paid hourly workers get no federal expense-reimbursement protection at all.

29 CFR §531.32 — employer-benefit items aren't "facilities"

The companion rule. Items "primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer" cannot be charged against the minimum wage. 29 CFR §531.32(c) enumerates examples that are not "facilities" — "safety equipment of the character required by the nature of the employment ... taxes and insurance on the employer's buildings ... company police and guard protection ... rental of uniforms where the nature of the business requires the employee to wear a uniform" and "medical services and hospitalization which the employer is bound to furnish under workmen's compensation acts or similar Federal, State, or local laws."

Together, §531.32 and §531.35 are the full federal expense framework. Everything else is state or local law.

DOL Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook Chapter 30

The DOL's internal enforcement guidance on deductions, kickbacks, and tools-of-trade lives in FOH Chapter 30, specifically the §30c sections on credits toward wages. FOH 30c11 addresses vehicle expenses, including the position that personal-vehicle business use may trigger a minimum-wage kickback violation when the IRS standard mileage rate × business miles, subtracted from gross wages, falls below the minimum.

The DOL took the position in opinion letter FLSA2008-15 (Sept. 11, 2008) and reaffirmed in subsequent enforcement guidance that an employer using a "reasonable approximation" of actual vehicle expense — often pegged to the IRS standard mileage rate — satisfies the kickback rule for minimum-wage purposes.

IRS standard mileage rate — the de facto benchmark

The IRS standard mileage rate is not a federal reimbursement requirement. It is a safe-harbor tax treatment: a published optional rate that taxpayers can use to substantiate vehicle expenses without tracking actual fuel, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance costs.

Why the rate matters

Reimbursement treatment. When an employer reimburses at or below the IRS rate under an accountable plan (26 CFR §1.62-2), the reimbursement is not taxable W-2 wages. Pay above the rate and the excess is taxable wages unless substantiated by actual cost.
The kickback safe harbor. A reimbursement at the IRS rate satisfies the §531.35 minimum-wage kickback rule for personal-vehicle business use as a reasonable approximation of actual expense.
The de facto benchmark. Employers without state-law obligations almost always peg their reimbursement to the IRS rate because it is simple, defensible, and tax-clean.

2026 rates

IRS Notice 2026-10, dated December 29, 2025 (announced as IR-2025-128), sets the optional standard mileage rates for tax year 2026:

Use	2026 rate	Change vs. 2025
Business	72.5¢/mile	+2.5¢
Medical	20.5¢/mile	−0.5¢
Moving (active-duty military)	20.5¢/mile	−0.5¢
Charitable	14¢/mile	0¢

Of the 72.5¢ business rate, 35¢ represents depreciation for FAVR-plan calculations — up 2¢ from 2025. The maximum standard automobile cost under a FAVR plan is $61,700 for 2026, an increase of $500 from 2025.

Rate history (last three years)

Year	Business	Medical/Moving	Charitable	Source
2026	72.5¢	20.5¢	14¢	Notice 2026-10
2025	70¢	21¢	14¢	Notice 2025-5
2024	67¢	21¢	14¢	Notice 2024-08

Why charitable is stuck at 14¢

The charitable mileage rate is fixed by statute at 14¢/mile under 26 USC §170(i) and has not changed since 1998. The IRS cannot adjust it administratively; only Congress can. Business and medical rates are adjusted annually via IRS Notice based on fixed-and-variable-cost analysis.

26 CFR §1.274-5 — mileage log substantiation

To claim the IRS rate (either for an individual deduction or for an accountable-plan reimbursement that escapes W-2 reporting), the business use must be substantiated under 26 CFR §1.274-5. For each trip:

Amount — business miles driven.
Time and place — date and destination.
Business purpose — what the trip was for.

A contemporaneous log made at or near the time of the trip has "a high degree of credibility." Reconstructed logs are permitted but receive less weight, and a reconstructed log made well after the fact requires "sufficient evidence" with "high probative value" to receive the same treatment as a contemporaneous one. Practical consequence: the employer reimbursing at the IRS rate inherits this documentation expectation. Mileage logs are the trust artifact; the reimbursement is only as tax-clean as the log behind it.

26 CFR §1.62-2 — accountable plans

Under 26 CFR §1.62-2, employer reimbursements escape W-2 wage treatment if the plan is an accountable plan, satisfying three prongs:

Business connection — the reimbursement is for an expense deductible under §162 (ordinary and necessary business expense).
Substantiation — the employee documents amount, time, place, and business purpose within a reasonable time (generally 60 days).
Return of excess — the employee returns any reimbursement exceeding the substantiated amount within a reasonable time (generally 120 days).

Plans that fail any prong are non-accountable: all reimbursement is treated as W-2 wages subject to payroll tax. Reimbursement at or below the IRS rate is presumed reasonable; reimbursement above the rate must be substantiated by actual costs or the excess is W-2 wages.

IRC §67(g) — no W-2 deduction for unreimbursed expenses

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 added IRC §67(g) suspending miscellaneous itemized deductions through 2025. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025) made the suspension permanent. Effective January 1, 2026, W-2 employees cannot deduct unreimbursed business expenses — mileage, home office, supplies, uniforms — at all on their federal return. A narrow educator-expense carve-out at IRC §62(a)(2)(D) remains.

The practical effect: every W-2 employee in a state without a §2802-equivalent now bears 100% of unreimbursed work expenses with no federal tax offset. That sharpens the §2802 reimbursement claim — the unreimbursed dollar is fully out-of-pocket, with no offsetting deduction.

Rev. Proc. 2019-46 and FAVR plans

Fixed-and-Variable-Rate (FAVR) plans under Rev. Proc. 2019-46 (and earlier Rev. Proc. 2010-51) are an IRS-blessed alternative to mileage reimbursement for employers running large fleets of personal-vehicle drivers. The employee receives (i) a fixed monthly stipend reflecting depreciation, insurance, and registration in their geography, plus (ii) a variable per-mile rate reflecting fuel and maintenance. The 2026 maximum standard automobile cost under a FAVR plan is $61,700 (IRS Notice 2026-10). FAVR is used by outside sales reps, field service technicians, and pharmaceutical reps — anyone driving 15,000+ business miles per year.

California Labor Code §2802 — the strictest state

California is the most expensive jurisdiction for expense reimbursement in the country, by a wide margin. The statute is broad, the case law is plaintiff-friendly, and the recoverable damages include attorney's fees, costs, and interest from the date of the expense.

§2802(a) — the indemnification rule

"An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful."

Three structural features distinguish §2802(a) from a generic expense-reimbursement statute:

Indemnification, not reimbursement. The employee is held harmless from the expense — the statute speaks the language of insurance and tort indemnity, not employment-policy reimbursement. Refusing to pay does not just deny a benefit; it shifts the cost back onto the employee, against the statute's express direction.
"In direct consequence." The employee must show the expense arose because of the work. Thai v. IBM confirmed that the employer's order need not be the proximate cause of the expense; it suffices that the expense was incurred "in direct consequence of the discharge of duties."
"Even though unlawful." The statute protects employees who follow employer directions in good faith even when those directions turn out to be unlawful.

§2802(b) — 10% interest from date of expense

"All awards made by a court or by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate as judgments in civil actions."

The civil judgment rate under CCP §685.010 is 10% per year. The interest accrues from the date the expense was incurred — not from the date the lawsuit was filed and not from the date of judgment. On a multi-year unreimbursed-mileage claim, the interest compounds materially.

§2802(c) — attorney's fees are "necessary expenditures"

"For purposes of this section, the term 'necessary expenditures or losses' shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section."

One-way fee-shifting in the employee's favor. The plaintiff's attorney recovers fees on a successful §2802 claim. A prevailing employer does not.

Statute of limitations

3 years under California Code of Civil Procedure §338(a) for the statutory §2802 claim itself.
4 years under California Business and Professions Code §17208 when the §2802 violation is repackaged as an unfair-business-practice (UCL) claim — a routine extension of the lookback period in practice.

Categories of "necessary expenditures or losses"

California courts have construed §2802's expense scope expansively. The recognized categories:

Mileage, fuel, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance for a personal vehicle used in work (the original Gattuso context).
A reasonable percentage of the employee's personal cell phone bill when use is required for work calls (Cochran).
Home internet, home office equipment, headsets, monitors, and required computer accessories for remote work (Thai; Williams v. Amazon).
Required uniform purchase and care.
Tools required for the job.
Required training travel.
Business meals during required travel.
Required certifications, licenses, and continuing education when the certification is a job condition.

Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 554 (Cal. 2007)

Outside-sales representatives drove personal vehicles to call on customers across Southern California. Harte-Hanks paid increased base salary and commissions in lieu of a separate mileage line item and refused to track or reimburse actual vehicle expenses.

The California Supreme Court (Kennard, J.) held:

§2802 obligates employers to reimburse for actual expenses, but permits three permissible methods — (a) actual-expense reimbursement, (b) mileage reimbursement at a rate per business mile, or (c) lump-sum payment via salary or commission enhancement.
A lump-sum method satisfies §2802 only when the employer identifies which portion of the compensation is the expense reimbursement and proves the amount is sufficient to cover actual expenses.
The employee retains the right to challenge any method's adequacy by proving actual expenses exceeded the reimbursement.

The lump-sum option is theoretically allowed but operationally fragile — the employer bears the burden of proof on apportionment and adequacy, so almost no California employer uses it. The practical effect of Gattuso is that the IRS standard mileage rate × business miles is the safe-harbor formula virtually every California employer adopts.

Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Customer-service managers were required to use their personal cell phones to handle work calls. Some had unlimited plans, some had plans paid by family members, some incurred no out-of-pocket incremental cost.

The Court of Appeal (Second District) held:

"[T]o show liability under section 2802, an employee need only show that he or she was required to use a personal cell phone to make work-related calls, and he or she was not reimbursed. Whether the employees have cell phone plans with unlimited minutes or limited minutes, the reimbursement owed is a reasonable percentage of their cell phone bills."

The court declined to define "reasonable percentage" — leaving that figure to negotiated settlement or further litigation. The California Supreme Court denied review.

Practical compliance pattern: California employers commonly pay a fixed monthly cell-phone stipend (most often $30–$100) or a percentage-of-bill reimbursement negotiated case-by-case. No court has fixed a percentage.

Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

IBM ordered its California employees to work from home in March 2020 in response to Governor Newsom's stay-at-home order. Employees personally purchased internet service, telephone service, headsets, computer monitors, and other equipment to do their jobs remotely. IBM never reimbursed them.

IBM defended on the theory that the government — not IBM — caused the work-from-home expenses, so they were not "in direct consequence of the discharge of duties."

The California Court of Appeal (First District) rejected the argument. Section 2802's reimbursement obligation "does not turn on whether the employer's order was the proximate cause of the expenses" — it turns on whether the expenses were "actually due to performance of the employee's duties." IBM required Thai to perform the work; the work could not be performed without the home setup; the home setup was therefore reimbursable.

Procedural posture: reversal of the trial court's judgment for IBM and remand for further proceedings.

Thai is the load-bearing post-pandemic case. It closed the "the government caused it, not us" defense and confirmed that remote-work expenses incurred during the COVID stay-home period are reimbursable under §2802. Every California remote-work expense class action since 2023 cites it.

Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01892 (N.D. Cal.)

California Amazon corporate employees worked from home during the pandemic and incurred home-internet costs Amazon did not reimburse. The federal district court (N.D. Cal., Chhabria, J.) granted in part and denied in part Amazon's motion to dismiss on June 1, 2022. The court denied class certification in March 2023 on commonality grounds (the "incremental cost" theory failed individual-cost commonality) but granted leave to amend.

The parties subsequently settled. The court granted final approval of a $950,000 class settlement on January 23, 2024, covering Amazon's California-based corporate employees who worked remotely during the COVID period. The settlement was administered by ILYM Group, Inc.

The case demonstrates the practical asymmetry: a single $950,000 settlement spread across a corporate-employee class translates to a modest per-worker recovery, but the litigation cost, settlement infrastructure, and class-action discovery exposure are full-freight regardless of the recovery amount. The litigation-cost asymmetry is what drives the rapid post-Thai compliance shift to monthly remote-work stipends.

Things employers consistently miss

The interest accrues from the date of expense, not the date of judgment. A mileage-reimbursement claim covering the past three years accrues 10% interest under §2802(b) and CCP §685.010 from every unreimbursed-expense date — not as a single judgment-date amount. Total interest on a multi-year claim routinely runs 15–25% of the principal.
Attorney's fees are mandatory on a successful claim. §2802(c) is one-way fee-shifting. Plaintiff's counsel commonly recovers fees as a multiple of the unreimbursed-expense principal, especially in class cases.
Cell-phone reimbursement is owed regardless of plan type. Cochran rejected the "no marginal cost" defense. An unlimited plan, a family-paid plan, or an employer-required-personal-number-only-for-text-alerts pattern all trigger the duty.
Remote-work expenses are reimbursable even when the government ordered the work-from-home. Thai rejected the proximate-cause defense.
The lump-sum salary enhancement option is theoretically available but practically unworkable. Gattuso requires the employer to identify the apportionment and prove adequacy; almost no employer carries the documentation.
The work-location rule controls multi-state exposure. A Texas-headquartered employer with a California remote worker owes §2802 reimbursement for the California-side work. Payroll location and HQ location do not displace the work-location rule.

State-by-state table

State	Affirmative reimbursement duty?	Triggering rule	Citation
Alabama	No	Federal floor only (29 CFR §531.35)	—
Alaska	No	Federal floor only	—
Arizona	No	Federal floor only	—
Arkansas	No	Federal floor only	—
California	Yes — broad	"All necessary expenditures or losses"	Cal. Lab. Code §2802
Colorado	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Connecticut	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Delaware	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
District of Columbia	Narrow — tools and uniforms	"Cost of purchasing and maintaining tools required ... in the performance of the business"; uniforms allowance	7 DCMR §910 (Tools); 7 DCMR §908 (Uniforms)
Florida	No	Federal floor only	—
Georgia	No	Federal floor only	—
Hawaii	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Idaho	No	Federal floor only	—
Illinois	Yes — broad	"All necessary expenditures or losses ... within the employee's scope of employment and directly related to services performed for the employer"	820 ILCS 115/9.5
Indiana	No	Federal floor only	—
Iowa	Narrow — only if authorized	30-day reimbursement of authorized expenses	Iowa Code §91A.3(6)
Kansas	No	Federal floor only	—
Kentucky	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Louisiana	No	Federal floor only	—
Maine	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Maryland	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Massachusetts	Yes — transportation expenses for off-site work	DLS Minimum Wage Reg	454 CMR 27.04(4) + MGL c.149 §148
Michigan	No	Federal floor only	—
Minnesota	Narrow — minimum-wage floor on uniform/equipment deductions; refund at termination	Required uniforms/equipment cap	Minn. Stat. §177.24, subd. 4–5
Mississippi	No	Federal floor only	—
Missouri	No	Federal floor only	—
Montana	Yes — broad	Indemnification: "All that the employee necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of duties"	MCA §39-2-701
Nebraska	No	Federal floor only	—
Nevada	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
New Hampshire	Yes — request-based	"Reimbursed for the payment of the expenses within 30 days" of proof of payment	RSA 275:57
New Jersey	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
New Mexico	No	Federal floor only	—
New York	Only if agreed	"Wage supplements" include reimbursement if subject to agreement	NY Lab. Law §198-c
North Carolina	No	Federal floor only	—
North Dakota	Yes — broad	Indemnification: same Field Code language	NDCC §34-02-01
Ohio	No	Federal floor only	—
Oklahoma	No	Federal floor only	—
Oregon	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Pennsylvania	Only if agreed	"Fringe benefits" treatment under WPCL	43 P.S. §260.1 et seq.
Rhode Island	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
South Carolina	No	Federal floor only	—
South Dakota	Yes — broad	Indemnification: same Field Code language	SDCL §60-2-1
Tennessee	No	Federal floor only	—
Texas	No	Federal floor only	—
Utah	No	Federal floor only	—
Vermont	No general duty	Federal floor only	—
Virginia	No	Federal floor only	—
Washington	State: no general duty; Seattle: yes (local ordinance)	Federal floor only statewide; "compensation owed" includes reimbursable expenses inside Seattle	SMC 14.20 (Seattle)
West Virginia	No	Federal floor only	—
Wisconsin	No	Federal floor only	—
Wyoming	No	Federal floor only	—

Illinois — 820 ILCS 115/9.5

The most important non-California reimbursement statute and the template for newer ordinances. Enacted August 26, 2018; effective January 1, 2019. The statute amended the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act:

"An employer shall reimburse an employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee within the employee's scope of employment and directly related to services performed for the employer."

"Necessary expenditures" is statutorily defined as "all reasonable expenditures or losses required of the employee in the discharge of employment duties and that inure to the primary benefit of the employer."

Key features:

Knowledge standard. The employer must have authorized or required the expenditure; the statute treats knowledge as sufficient — formal pre-authorization is not required.
30-day submission window. The employee must submit expense claims (with supporting documentation when available) within 30 days of incurring the expense, unless the employer's written policy provides a longer period.
Written statement permits missing receipts. When supporting documentation is lost, missing, or never existed, a written statement from the employee suffices.
Reasonable employer caps permitted. A written expense policy may cap reimbursement (e.g., on cell-phone reimbursement) so long as the cap is reasonable and does not eliminate reimbursement for genuinely necessary expenses.
Private right of action through the IWPCA. The Wage Payment and Collection Act's enforcement provisions at 820 ILCS 115/14 apply: prevailing employees recover attorney's fees and costs.
Negligence carve-out. The employer is not responsible for losses from employee negligence, normal wear, or theft unless the employer's own negligence caused the loss.

Massachusetts — 454 CMR 27.04(4) + MGL c.149 §148

Massachusetts does not have a §2802-style broad indemnification statute. The Department of Labor Standards' minimum-wage regulation 454 CMR 27.04(4) requires reimbursement of travel-related transportation expenses in two specific patterns:

"(b) An employee who regularly works at a fixed location is required to report to a location other than his or her regular work site ..." "(d) An employee is required or directed to travel from one place to another after the beginning of or before the close of the work day."

Enforcement runs through the Wage Act (MGL c.149 §148), which carries mandatory treble damages plus attorney's fees and costs (MGL c.149 §150). The Massachusetts SJC has consistently treated regulation violations actionable through the Wage Act with the c.149 §148 statutory remedy.

The regulation is narrower than California §2802 — it covers transportation expenses for off-site work, not all "necessary expenditures." Massachusetts has no general reimbursement duty for cell phones, home internet, equipment, or remote-work setup outside the transportation-expense scope.

Montana — MCA §39-2-701

Field Code lineage. Textually identical structure to California §2802(a):

"An employer shall indemnify the employer's employee, except as prescribed in subsection (2), for all that the employee necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee's duties or of the employee's obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful."

The subsection (2) exception carves out losses caused by the employee's own want of ordinary care. The statute traces to the 1895 Montana Civil Code — an artifact of David Dudley Field's draft civil code adoption that California, the Dakotas, and Montana all picked up.

North Dakota — NDCC §34-02-01

Same Field Code lineage. "An employer must indemnify an employee, except as prescribed in section 34-02-02, for all that the employee necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee's duties as such, or of obedience to the directions of the employer."

South Dakota — SDCL §60-2-1

Same Field Code lineage. "An employer shall indemnify his employee, except as prescribed in §60-2-2, for all that the employee necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of his duties as such, or of his obedience to the directions of the employer."

The Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota statutes share a common parent and similar case-law gap: each has §2802-equivalent text but minimal published interpretive case law applying the statute to modern expense categories (cell phones, home internet, remote-work equipment). A California-trained §2802 plaintiff's bar has not yet exported the post-Cochran and post-Thai litigation patterns into the Field Code states, though the statutory hooks are textually identical.

New Hampshire — RSA 275:57

Different structure than the Field Code states:

"An employee who incurs expenses in connection with his or her employment and at the request of the employer, except those expenses normally borne by the employee as a precondition of employment, which are not paid for by wages, cash advance, or other means from the employer, shall be reimbursed for the payment of the expenses within 30 days of the presentation by the employee of proof of payment."

Willful violation carries up to a $2,500 civil penalty per violation under RSA 275:51, plus interest. Enforced by the New Hampshire Department of Labor and through private action.

District of Columbia — 7 DCMR §910 and §908

DC has no §2802-style broad indemnification statute. The wage-hour regulations under 7 DCMR Chapter 9 (Wage-Hour Rules) address narrow categories:

7 DCMR §910 (Tools): "The employer shall pay the cost of purchasing and maintaining any tools required of the employee in the performance of the business of the employer."
7 DCMR §908 (Uniforms / Protective Clothing): The employer must pay for purchase, maintenance, and cleaning of required uniforms or protective clothing, with itemized in-lieu cash allowances when the employer does not furnish the uniform directly.

The DC regulations are functionally a narrower analogue to the federal §531.35 kickback rule plus a specific tools-and-uniforms duty. There is no general "necessary expenditures" indemnification.

Iowa — Iowa Code §91A.3(6)

"Expenses by the employee which are authorized by the employer and incurred by the employee shall either be reimbursed in advance of expenditure or be reimbursed not later than thirty days after the employee's submission of an expense claim. If the employer refuses to pay all or part of each claim, the employer shall submit to the employee a written justification of such refusal within the same time period in which expense claims are paid."

A timing rule, not a duty-creating rule. Iowa requires 30-day reimbursement of authorized expenses but does not independently make any specific expense "authorized." The Wage Payment Collection Law in Chapter 91A carries the enforcement mechanism.

Minnesota — Minn. Stat. §177.24

Narrow. Bars employers from deducting from wages for required uniforms, equipment, consumable supplies, or travel expenses when the deduction would reduce wages below the minimum wage. Caps total deduction for uniforms and equipment at $50. At termination, the employer must refund the full amount deducted. Functionally a state-law analogue to the federal kickback rule.

New York — NY Labor Law §198-c

"Benefits or wage supplements" include "reimbursement for expenses; health, welfare and retirement benefits; and vacation, separation or holiday pay." An employer party to an agreement to pay such supplements must pay them within 30 days, with willful failure punishable as a misdemeanor.

§198-c only operates where there is an underlying agreement (contract, handbook, policy). It does not create a free-standing reimbursement duty. The statute exempts executive, administrative, and professional employees earning over a specified weekly threshold (currently $1,300/week).

Pennsylvania — 43 P.S. §260.2a (Wage Payment and Collection Law)

Pennsylvania has no expense-reimbursement statute. Where the employer has agreed (handbook, policy, contract) to reimburse, the unreimbursed amount is treated as a "fringe benefit" under the Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. §260.1 et seq., and must be paid within 60 days of the claim. Otherwise the only protection is the federal kickback floor.

Seattle — SMC 14.20 (Wage Theft Ordinance)

Effective April 1, 2015. The Seattle Municipal Code defines "compensation owed" to include reimbursable expenses under the contract or applicable law. The ordinance criminalizes wage theft as a gross misdemeanor and authorizes administrative enforcement by the Seattle Office of Labor Standards plus a private right of action with attorney's fees, costs, and treble damages for willful violations.

For independent contractors performing work in Seattle, the Independent Contractor Protections Ordinance (SMC 14.34, effective September 1, 2022) requires pre-contract disclosure of "typical expenses to be reimbursed by the hiring entity" and itemized payment statements showing "expenses reimbursed."

Cell-phone reimbursement specifically

The most common 2020s reimbursement claim. Three rules to know:

California (Cochran): A reasonable percentage of the employee's monthly cell phone bill is owed whenever a personal cell phone is required for work — regardless of plan type or marginal cost. Compliance pattern: a fixed monthly stipend (typically $30–$100) or a percentage of the bill negotiated case-by-case.
Illinois (820 ILCS 115/9.5): Same theory if cell phone use is required and the use inures to the employer's primary benefit. The employer may cap reimbursement by written policy; the cap must be reasonable and may not eliminate reimbursement entirely.
Everywhere else: No general duty. The federal §531.35 kickback rule protects only minimum-wage workers from cell-phone costs that drop pay below $7.25/hr.

"Required" is interpreted broadly under Cochran. An employer that calls or texts the employee on a personal number, sends work alerts via a personal phone app, or expects the employee to be reachable without issuing a company device has "required" the cell phone use under §2802 — even without a written policy mandating it.

Remote-work expenses — the post-2020 surface

The COVID stay-at-home orders of 2020–2021 sent millions of California, Illinois, and other-state employees home with no employer equipment subsidy. The post-pandemic litigation wave continued through 2025–2026.

Pattern recognition:

Home internet. Universally claimed as reimbursable in California and Illinois. Thai v. IBM confirmed for California. Employers commonly pay a flat $30–$75/month stipend.
Cell phone. Pre-existing Cochran liability extended to fully-remote employees.
Home office equipment. Chairs, monitors, headsets, desks, keyboards. Thai confirmed reimbursable. Employers commonly issue an initial equipment stipend ($500–$1,500) or ship equipment directly.
Electricity and heating. Theoretically covered under §2802 but rarely litigated as a standalone claim; usually rolled into a "home office stipend."
Co-working and desk-share fees. When the employee chooses, generally no; when the employer requires the off-home workspace, yes.

Named cases and settlements:

Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. July 11, 2023) — appellate decision reversing the trial court's judgment for IBM and remanding for further proceedings.
Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01892 (N.D. Cal.) — $950,000 class settlement covering California Amazon corporate employees for unreimbursed home-internet costs during the pandemic; final approval granted January 23, 2024.

Insurance posture: most employment-practices liability insurance (EPLI) policies exclude §2802 claims by express exclusion, so these settlements come out of operating budget rather than insurance. The biggest exposure component is the multi-year backpay × 10% interest under §2802(b) + attorney's fees under §2802(c), which routinely doubles or triples the naked unreimbursed-cost figure.

Industry-specific patterns

Outside sales and field service

The original §2802 / Gattuso context. Outside sales representatives, field service technicians, pharmaceutical reps, and route drivers using personal vehicles for daily customer or service-site calls trigger the highest per-employee mileage exposure. FAVR plans under Rev. Proc. 2019-46 (IRS maximum $61,700 standard automobile cost for 2026) are the standard compliance vehicle for fleets of 25+ field workers.

Delivery drivers and gig contractors

Last-mile delivery, courier, and food-delivery work involves personal-vehicle use measured in 10,000+ business miles per year. Independent-contractor classification under California AB 5 / Lab. Code §2775 (ABC test with statutory exemptions) and the prior Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. 2018), framework has produced parallel reimbursement-class-action exposure for misclassified drivers — when drivers are reclassified as employees, three years of §2802 mileage and cell-phone reimbursement reach back at 10% interest under §2802(b).

Healthcare home-visit nurses and therapists

Home-health-aide, hospice-nurse, and occupational/physical-therapist work involves daily personal-vehicle travel between patient homes. The §2802 mileage reimbursement claim is straightforward in California; the regulatory complexity is documenting the boundary between commute (home → first patient) and compensable work travel (patient → patient → patient), which interacts with travel-time-pay rules under California IWC Wage Order 4.

Construction trades

Multi-jobsite work patterns trigger 454 CMR 27.04(4) reimbursement in Massachusetts when the worker is required to travel between sites mid-day. In California, the same pattern triggers §2802 plus the travel-time-pay rule under Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (Cal. 2000), for employer-controlled transportation.

Public-sector employees

State and municipal employees are generally not covered by §2802 (which applies to "an employer" and is enforced through the Labor Commissioner's wage-and-hour jurisdiction over private employers). California public-sector mileage reimbursement runs through agency policy and applicable MOUs/CBAs, typically pegged to the IRS rate.

Multi-state and remote workers — the work-location rule

The governing principle: reimbursement law follows the employee's work location, not the employer's headquarters or payroll office.

Concrete scenarios:

California-remote employee of a Texas employer. §2802 applies. The employer must reimburse cell phone, internet, home office equipment, and personal-vehicle mileage for California-side work. Williams v. Amazon confirmed.
Illinois-remote employee of a Florida employer. 820 ILCS 115/9.5 applies. The same reimbursement duties attach, with the 30-day submission window and the reasonable-cap permission.
Texas-remote employee of a California employer. No state reimbursement duty applies. Only the federal §531.35 kickback floor at $7.25/hr protects the worker.
Employee splits time between California (4 days/week) and Nevada (1 day/week). §2802 applies to expenses incurred for California-side work. Most California-headquartered employers apply §2802 across the entire workweek to avoid prorating — the IRS-rate × business miles + a monthly home-office stipend covers both states.
Traveling sales rep crossing California, Illinois, New York, and Arizona in a single week. §2802 and 820 ILCS 115/9.5 govern the expenses incurred while working in California and Illinois respectively. New York §198-c applies only if there is a written reimbursement agreement. Arizona has no duty above the federal kickback floor. Most multi-state employers default to a single national reimbursement policy pegged at the highest-state floor to avoid the per-state tracking burden.

HR and payroll systems must track each employee's primary and incidental work location at sufficient granularity (date, location, project) to support a §2802 audit. Without that, California's general "employer keeps records" duty under Labor Code §1174 and Wage Order recordkeeping requirements can produce burden-shifting on unreimbursed-expense claims similar to the Mt. Clemens rule in the FLSA context.

Recent changes (last 18 months)

December 29, 2025 — IRS Notice 2026-10 (IR-2025-128) set the 2026 business standard mileage rate at 72.5¢/mile, up 2.5¢ from 2025; medical and moving rates held at 21¢/mile; charitable held at 14¢/mile (statutory under 26 USC §170(i)). 2026 FAVR maximum standard automobile cost: $61,700.
July 4, 2025 — The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was enacted, making permanent the IRC §67(g) suspension of miscellaneous itemized deductions originally enacted by the TCJA in 2017. The suspension was set to expire December 31, 2025; OBBBA locked it in indefinitely. The educator-expense carve-out at IRC §62(a)(2)(D) remains. W-2 employees can no longer deduct unreimbursed business expenses (mileage, home office, supplies, uniforms) on their federal return.
2024–2025 — Post-Thai class actions filed against multiple California technology and financial-services employers on internet, equipment, and electricity reimbursement; settlement amounts have trended upward through 2024 and into 2025.
January 23, 2024 — Final approval granted in Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01892 (N.D. Cal.), for a $950,000 class settlement covering California Amazon corporate employees for unreimbursed home-internet costs.
July 11, 2023 — Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364, was decided by the California Court of Appeal (First District), reversing the trial court's judgment for IBM and rejecting the proximate-cause-of-government-order defense to §2802.
September 1, 2022 — Seattle SMC 14.34 (Independent Contractor Protections Ordinance) took effect, requiring pre-contract disclosure of "typical expenses to be reimbursed" and itemized payment statements showing "expenses reimbursed."
No pending federal legislation would create a federal expense-reimbursement duty as of May 2026. Periodic proposals to amend the FLSA to include personal-vehicle reimbursement have not advanced.

FAQ

Is there a federal law requiring employers to reimburse business expenses?

No. The FLSA contains no affirmative reimbursement duty. The only federal expense protection is 29 CFR §531.35 (the "free and clear" / kickback rule), which prevents an employer from requiring an employee to absorb work expenses if doing so drops effective wages below the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr or the overtime premium. The companion regulation at 29 CFR §531.32 identifies employer-benefit items that cannot be charged against wages as "facilities."

What is the IRS standard mileage rate for 2026?

72.5¢ per business mile under IRS Notice 2026-10 (IR-2025-128, December 29, 2025). Medical and moving (active-duty military): 20.5¢/mile. Charitable: 14¢/mile (fixed by statute at 26 USC §170(i)). The 2026 FAVR maximum standard automobile cost is $61,700.

Is the IRS standard rate required by law?

No. The IRS rate is a safe-harbor tax treatment under an accountable plan (26 CFR §1.62-2), not a federal reimbursement requirement. Reimbursement at or below the IRS rate is presumed reasonable and is not taxable W-2 wages; reimbursement above the rate must be substantiated by actual cost or the excess is taxable. The rate is the de facto benchmark almost every employer adopts because it is simple, defensible, and tax-clean.

Which states require employers to reimburse business expenses?

Ten jurisdictions: California (Lab. Code §2802 — broadest), Illinois (820 ILCS 115/9.5 — broad), Montana (MCA §39-2-701), North Dakota (NDCC §34-02-01), South Dakota (SDCL §60-2-1), New Hampshire (RSA 275:57 — 30-day rule), Massachusetts (454 CMR 27.04(4) — transportation expenses only), Iowa (Iowa Code §91A.3(6) — 30-day timing rule for authorized expenses), the District of Columbia (7 DCMR §910 tools + §908 uniforms), and the City of Seattle (SMC 14.20). Minnesota (Minn. Stat. §177.24) and New York (NY Lab. Law §198-c) impose narrower obligations.

What does California Labor Code §2802 require?

§2802(a) requires the employer to "indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties." §2802(b) attaches 10% interest from the date of expense under CCP §685.010. §2802(c) makes attorney's fees a "necessary expenditure" — one-way fee-shifting in the employee's favor. The recognized categories include mileage, fuel, vehicle maintenance, cell phone, home internet, home office equipment, required uniforms, required tools, and training travel.

Does an employer have to reimburse a California employee's personal cell phone bill if the employee has an unlimited plan?

Yes. Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014), held that §2802 requires the employer to pay "a reasonable percentage" of the bill when the personal cell phone is required for work — regardless of whether the employee paid any marginal cost, whether someone else paid the bill, or whether the plan was unlimited. The reimbursement is owed for the use of the phone for work, not for the incremental dollar.

Does a California employer have to reimburse remote-work expenses incurred during the COVID stay-home period?

Yes. Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023), rejected the "the government caused it, not us" defense. §2802's reimbursement obligation does not turn on the proximate cause of the expense; it turns on whether the expense was "actually due to performance of the employee's duties." Home internet, equipment, and the rest of the remote-work setup are reimbursable.

Can W-2 employees deduct unreimbursed business expenses on their federal tax return?

No. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended miscellaneous itemized deductions under IRC §67(g) through 2025. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025) made the suspension permanent. A narrow educator-expense carve-out at IRC §62(a)(2)(D) remains. For every other W-2 employee, an unreimbursed business expense is fully out-of-pocket with no federal tax offset, which sharpens the §2802 / §9.5 reimbursement claim.

What is the statute of limitations for a California §2802 claim?

Three years under California Code of Civil Procedure §338(a) for the §2802 claim itself. Four years under California Business and Professions Code §17208 when the violation is repackaged as a UCL (unfair competition) claim, which is the routine litigation strategy to extend the lookback.

Does §2802 follow the employee or the employer?

The employee. The work-location rule governs: §2802 applies to a California-resident remote employee of an out-of-state employer for the work performed in California. The employer's HQ, payroll location, and state of incorporation do not displace the rule. A Texas-headquartered employer with a California remote worker owes §2802 reimbursement for California-side work.

If you discover you've been doing this wrong

Identify which jurisdictions apply. Pull the work-location data for every employee and contractor — primary work location, incidental work location, and date ranges. The §2802 / §9.5 obligation attaches per-location, not per-employer-HQ.
Reconstruct the unreimbursed-expense inventory. For each affected worker, gather mileage logs, personal cell phone bills, home-internet bills, home-office equipment receipts, and any required-training-travel costs across the limitations window — three years under CCP §338(a) for §2802, four years through Bus. & Prof. Code §17208 if a UCL theory applies. Missing records shift the burden to the employer under California's general recordkeeping duty.
Compute the back exposure. Mileage at the year-by-year IRS rate × business miles is the baseline. Cell phone at a "reasonable percentage" of the bill — settle on a defensible monthly stipend ($30–$100) and apply retroactively. Home internet at a flat monthly stipend ($30–$75) × months of remote work. Equipment at actual cost or a documented stipend. Layer §2802(b) interest at 10%/year accruing from the date of each unreimbursed-expense incurrence (not the date of the payment).
Adopt forward-looking compliance instruments. Written reimbursement policy with documented submission cadence (mirroring the 820 ILCS 115/9.5 30-day window). Monthly stipends for cell phone and home internet (defensible to settle the Cochran "reasonable percentage" question by amount). Mileage tracking via the IRS-rate × business-miles formula with 26 CFR §1.274-5 substantiation (date, destination, business purpose). Equipment stipend for new hires; ship equipment for fully-remote.
Decide on a voluntary payment posture. Voluntary back-payment with a release can resolve the §2802 / §9.5 claim individually but does not waive the employee's right to attorney's fees under §2802(c) absent court or DLSE approval of the release. For multi-worker exposure, voluntary payment without class-mechanics counsel risks creating notice events that trigger §216(b)-style opt-in collective claims; for any per-worker exposure exceeding $5,000–$10,000, class-action counsel becomes the load-bearing dependency.

The bottom line

The federal floor is a kickback rule, not a reimbursement duty — and the IRS standard rate is a tax safe-harbor, not a mandate. The affirmative duty exists in California (Lab. Code §2802), Illinois (820 ILCS 115/9.5), Massachusetts (454 CMR 27.04(4)), and a handful of Field Code states. California's fee-shifting plus 10% interest from date of expense is what makes §2802 the dominant exposure surface.

The structural failure modes recur: lump-sum salary enhancement without Gattuso apportionment, cell-phone reimbursement refused on a "no marginal cost" theory after Cochran closed that defense, remote-work expenses denied on a "government caused it" theory after Thai closed that defense, and W-2 employees told to "deduct it on your taxes" after §67(g) (now permanent under OBBBA) closed that path.

The highest-leverage operational discipline is the work-location-aware reimbursement policy: monthly stipends for cell phone and home internet, IRS-rate-pegged per-mile reimbursement for business miles, equipment provided up-front, mileage logs substantiated under 26 CFR §1.274-5, and a 30-day submission window patterned on §9.5. Everything else is downstream of that policy plus the records it generates.

Sources

Federal statutes

29 USC §206 — Minimum wage: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/206
29 USC §207 — Maximum hours: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/207
26 USC §62 — Adjusted gross income (accountable-plan deduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/62
26 USC §67 — Two-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/67
26 USC §162 — Trade or business expenses: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/162
26 USC §170 — Charitable contributions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/170

Federal regulations

29 CFR §531.32 — Facilities: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/531.32
29 CFR §531.35 — Free-and-clear / kickback rule: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/531.35
26 CFR §1.62-2 — Reimbursements and other expense-allowance arrangements: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.62-2
26 CFR §1.274-5 — Substantiation requirements: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.274-5

IRS guidance and rulemakings

IRS Notice 2026-10 — 2026 standard mileage rates: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-26-10.pdf
IRS press release on 2026 rates (IR-2025-128): https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-sets-2026-business-standard-mileage-rate-at-725-cents-per-mile-up-25-cents
IRS standard mileage rates index: https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates
IRS Notice 2025-5 — 2025 rates: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-25-05.pdf
IRS Notice 2024-08 — 2024 rates: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-24-08.pdf
IRS guidance on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provisions: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/one-big-beautiful-bill-provisions
Rev. Proc. 2019-46 — FAVR rules: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-19-46.pdf

DOL guidance

DOL Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook Chapter 30: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/FOH_Ch30.pdf
DOL opinion letter FLSA2008-15 (vehicle expenses and the kickback rule): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/2008_09_11_15_FLSA.pdf

Case law

Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 554 (Cal. 2007): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1179515.html
Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1675681.html
Thai v. International Business Machines Corp., 93 Cal. App. 5th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023): https://casetext.com/case/thai-v-intl-bus-machs-corp-1
Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01892 (N.D. Cal.): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63186857/williams-v-amazoncom-services-llc/
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. 2018): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2018/s222732.html
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (Cal. 2000): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/22/575.html

State authorities

California Labor Code §2802: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2802.&lawCode=LAB
California Code of Civil Procedure §338: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=338.&lawCode=CCP
California Code of Civil Procedure §685.010: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=685.010.&lawCode=CCP
California Business and Professions Code §17208: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=17208.&lawCode=BPC
California Labor Code §1174: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1174.&lawCode=LAB
820 ILCS 115/9.5 — Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=082001150K9.5
820 ILCS 115/14 — IWPCA enforcement: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=082001150K14
454 CMR 27.04 — Massachusetts minimum-wage regulation: https://www.mass.gov/regulations/454-CMR-27-minimum-wage
Massachusetts General Laws c.149 §148: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexxi/chapter149/section148
Massachusetts General Laws c.149 §150: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexxi/chapter149/section150
Montana Code Annotated §39-2-701: https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0070/section_0010/0390-0020-0070-0010.html
North Dakota Century Code §34-02-01: https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t34c02.pdf
South Dakota Codified Laws §60-2-1: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/60-2-1
New Hampshire RSA 275:57: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-57.htm
New Hampshire RSA 275:51: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-51.htm
Iowa Code §91A.3: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/91A.3.pdf
Minnesota Statutes §177.24: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/177.24
New York Labor Law §198-c: https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._labor_law_section_198-c
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 P.S. §260.1 et seq.): https://www.dli.pa.gov/Individuals/Labor-Management-Relations/llc/Pages/Wage-Payment-and-Collection-Law.aspx
7 DCMR §908 — Uniforms: http://dcrules.elaws.us/dcmr/7-908
7 DCMR §910 — Tools: http://dcrules.elaws.us/dcmr/7-910
Seattle Municipal Code 14.20 — Wage Theft Ordinance: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT14HURI_CH14.20WATICORE
Seattle Municipal Code 14.34 — Independent Contractor Protections Ordinance: https://www.seattle.gov/laborstandards/ordinances/independent-contractor-protections-