In the United States v. Correll et ux., 1967, the Supreme Court addressed whether a taxpayer who takes meals away from home while on business can deduct these expenses under section 162(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code without proving that he was "away from home overnight." The respondent, an airline pilot, deducted meal expenses incurred during his daily flights as ordinary and necessary business expenses. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed this deduction because Correll did not stay overnight. The Tax Court ruled in favor of Correll but upon appeal by the government to the Supreme Court, it reversed this decision. Justice Potter Stewart delivered a unanimous opinion stating that for such deductions to be allowed there must be sleep or rest involved indicating an overnight stay; merely being away from one's tax home is insufficient.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Correll et ux., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold an IRS regulation was incorrect because it went beyond what Congress had intended when they wrote the tax law in question. He believed that by allowing taxpayers to deduct expenses only if they were away from home overnight, the IRS was adding a requirement not found in the actual text of the law. According to Douglas, this interpretation unfairly penalized those who traveled long distances but did not stay overnight and therefore could not claim deductions for their meals or other incidental expenses. He also criticized his colleagues' reliance on administrative convenience as a justification for upholding such regulations, arguing that it should be secondary to interpreting and applying laws correctly.