What this is about
People posted to Switzerland for a few years often pay twice: the home abroad keeps running, and a second one is added here. Swiss tax law has a deduction built for exactly that — the special professional expenses of expatriates. How it works in general is set out in our guide to the deduction. This article is about the canton of Geneva.
Who counts as an expatriate
Before the cantonal level matters at all, the basic condition has to be met. Art. 1 para. 1 ExpaV covers two groups: managers and specialists with particular professional qualifications who are posted to Switzerland temporarily by their foreign employer. Not everyone who comes to Switzerland on a fixed-term basis meets that test.
What "temporary" means is set out in Art. 1 para. 2 ExpaV: employment limited to a maximum of five years. And under Art. 1 para. 3 ExpaV the deduction falls away in any case where fixed-term employment is replaced by permanent employment — even if the five years have not been used up.
The legal basis in Geneva
For cantonal and communal tax, Art. 29 para. 1 lit. c and para. 2 LIPP applies — the provision on the other costs required to carry out your profession. The special professional expenses of expatriates are given shape by the federal Expatriates Ordinance, which applies directly to federal direct tax.
A specific, publicly published Geneva guideline on the special professional expenses of expatriates — comparable to those of Zurich, Thurgau or Basel-Stadt — is currently not apparent. The deduction runs through the general provision on professional expenses, with Art. 29 para. 2 LIPP expressly reserving proof of higher effective costs. Geneva does list expatriation allowances as a dedicated area for tax rulings. An overview of the cantonal rules on professional expenses is available in the canton sheet of the Federal Tax Administration.
How Geneva handles the deduction
Because no detailed published guideline is apparent, the practice of the tax administration decides case by case in Geneva — and it can diverge from how the same item is handled for federal direct tax. From our own case work we know instances where the same tax administration calculated the deduction itself for federal tax and removed it entirely for cantonal and communal tax. That is not a general Geneva rule, but a pattern we have seen.
The counter-provision: Art. 38 para. 1 lit. a LIPP
One point is worth raising yourself in Geneva, because otherwise it comes back at you from the tax administration: Art. 38 para. 1 lit. a LIPP excludes living costs from deduction — and expressly names the «loyers du logement», the rent of the home.
That goes further than federal law. Art. 34 lit. a of the Federal Direct Tax Act also excludes the maintenance costs of the taxpayer and their family and private expenditure arising from their professional position — but it does not name rent separately. Geneva has it in the statute.
This does not rule out the expatriate deduction. The provision catches rent as private living costs; the special professional expenses of a temporary assignment are income-generating costs and run through Art. 29 para. 1 lit. c and para. 2 LIPP. But drawing that line is the decisive step in Geneva — and it belongs in the reasoning from the start, not first in an objection.
Example: high rent, two assessments
A manager rents in the city of Geneva at CHF 5,000 net plus CHF 300 utilities and keeps her home abroad, which remains available for her own use.
- Effective housing costs claimed: CHF 5,000 × 12 = CHF 60,000
- Not deductible: CHF 3,600 of utilities a year
- Flat rate: CHF 18,000 for housing, relocation and travel together
Whether the tax administration recognises these costs in full is another matter — reasonableness is assessed case by case. That is exactly why it pays to build the reasoning properly from the start and to use the treatment for federal direct tax as a benchmark.
What to watch for in Geneva
In Geneva, read both assessments separately. They arrive in the same envelope but can differ — and looking only at the bottom line, you would never notice.
Regardless of canton, it is almost always the same points that cost people the deduction: gross rent claimed instead of net rent, the wrong provision cited, rate determination overlooked when arriving or leaving mid-year, or the home abroad left undocumented. The details are in our guide to the deduction, and what applies to travel and relocation costs is in the article on those.
Who carried the costs is decisive
What matters is who bears the costs economically and how any employer reimbursement is treated for tax purposes. An actual reimbursement against receipts generally rules out an additional deduction. Where a lump sum is paid and added to taxable gross salary in the salary statement, a deduction remains possible.
Every case is different — the potential usually is not
Whether and how much you can deduct depends on your situation: how the assignment is set up, your employment contract, your housing situation abroad, and who actually carried the costs. This article sets out the principles and a simplified example; it does not replace individual advice. What does generalise: on fixed-term assignments, deductions are regularly left on the table — a second look is almost always worth it.