Uniformity in Remote Working Tax During COVID-19 : vimarsana

Uniformity in Remote Working Tax During COVID-19


Tuesday, March 9, 2021
As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic wears on, many companies that adopted emergency work-from-home or work-from-anywhere policies are considering allowing employees to work remotely permanently, even after the threat of the pandemic has subsided. Many states addressed the personal income tax implications for employees who commuted across state lines pre-pandemic by adopting temporary COVID-19 tax policies; however, states generally have not yet announced how they will treat for tax purposes the expected shift to a post-pandemic remote workforce.
Some states’ temporary COVID-19 policies provided that employees would continue to have personal income tax obligations where their offices are located (Office States), even if they worked exclusively from a different state during the pandemic (Work State) and even if they were forced to do so pursuant to lockdown orders. However, many of these measures were adopted on an emergency basis with no expectation that the restrictions on employees’ ability to commute would last so long or that the pandemic would provide the final push in some sectors toward long-term work-from-anywhere policies. As a result, it now appears that some of these measures may create significant future challenges: (1) arguably, policies like these violate constitutional principles by imposing tax obligations on nonresidents who are no longer performing services in the Office State; (2) from a policy perspective, these kinds of policies run the risk of double-taxing nonresidents (i.e., by subjecting them to income tax on the same income—in both the Office State and the Work State); and (3) the Work State could lose certain benefits to which it may be entitled because of the Office State’s policies, resulting in possible harm to the Work State’s economy or robbing the Work State of tax revenue that may rightly be due to the Work State. 

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Arkansas , New Hampshire , Commonwealth Of Massachusetts , Massachusetts , Delaware , Boston , State Of New Hampshire , Connecticut , New Jersey , Nebraska , Iowa , Pennsylvania , Hampshire , Hawaii , Edwarda Zelinsky , , Buckeye Institute , Supreme Court , Southeastern Legal Foundation , Office States , Work State , Office State , Commerce Clause , Due Process Clause , Work States , Solicitor General , Pandemic Related Circumstance , Revised Guidance , Massachusetts Tax Implications , Employee Working Remotely , File Complaint , Professor Edward , Profession Edward , Amicus Curiae , File Bill , Amicus Curiae Brief , Legal , Government , Remote Working Tax , New Hampshirev Massachusetts , புதியது யார்க் , ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் , ஆர்கன்சாஸ் , புதியது ஹாம்ப்ஷயர் , காமன்வெல்த் ஆஃப் மாசசூசெட்ஸ் , மாசசூசெட்ஸ் , டெலாவேர் , போஸ்டன் , நிலை ஆஃப் புதியது ஹாம்ப்ஷயர் , கனெக்டிகட் , புதியது ஜெர்சி , நெப்ராஸ்கா , ஐயுவா , பென்சில்வேனியா , ஹாம்ப்ஷயர் , ஹவாய் , பக்கி நிறுவனம் , உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் , தென்கிழக்கு சட்டப்பூர்வமானது அடித்தளம் , அலுவலகம் மாநிலங்களில் , வேலை நிலை , அலுவலகம் நிலை , வர்த்தகம் உட்கூறு , காரணமாக ப்ரோஸெஸ் உட்கூறு , வேலை மாநிலங்களில் , வழக்குரைஞர் ஜநரல் , சர்வதேச பரவல் தொடர்புடையது சூழ்நிலை , ஊழியர் வேலை தொலைவிலிருந்து , கோப்பு புகார் , ப்ரொஃபெஸர் எட்வர்ட் , ப்ரொஃபெஶந் எட்வர்ட் , கோப்பு ர சி து , சட்டப்பூர்வமானது , அரசு , தொலைநிலை வேலை வரி ,

© 2025 Vimarsana