The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • IRS Grants Tax Extension to Feb. 15 for Mainers Affected by Hurricane Lee
  • Portland City Council to Consider $134,000 150-Bed Expansion to Homeless Shelter by Emergency Declaration
  • Dangerous Company: Sam Patten’s Memoir Is a Riveting Insight Into 25 Years of American Foreign Policy
  • New Maine CDC Director Recommends Masks and Latest COVID Booster for Everybody Ages 6 months and Older
  • Canadian House Speaker Apologizes After Parliament Gives ‘Hero’ Nazi Veteran a Standing Ovation
  • NASCAR Driver Austin Theriault Joins the Race for Maine’s Second Congressional District
  • Temporary Ban on New Hotel, Homeless Shelter Construction Under Consideration by Bar Harbor Town Council
  • Portland Police Warn of Bitcoin ATM Extortion Scam
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Login
Tuesday, September 26
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
The Maine Wire
Home » News » In missed opportunity, SCOTUS declines to rule on WFH tax case
Commentary

In missed opportunity, SCOTUS declines to rule on WFH tax case

Nick LinderBy Nick LinderJuly 4, 2021Updated:July 4, 2021No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

In a disappointing decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected to hear the case of New Hampshire v. Massachusetts in what could have been a momentous ruling for those who work from home.

The decision came Monday with no collective comment from the justices. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have moved forward with the suit, while the Biden administration recommended the high court stay out of it.

The issue raised in the case is over income taxes paid for remote work. The suit comes from 123,000 Granite Staters who worked in Massachusetts pre-pandemic yet were still faced with the same income tax expenses even after they pivoted to work-from-home.

In other words, they were no longer physically in the state of Massachusetts, yet still had to pay higher income tax to the jurisdiction in which their offices were located.

Of course, New Hampshire has no income tax, which adds a layer of irony to the situation. These citizens performed work physically in New Hampshire, yet still had to pay a 5% income tax to the state of Massachusetts.

The state implemented this “temporary” rule roughly a month after directing non-essential employees to work from home due to COVID-19. On October 16, Massachusetts extended the rule until the end of the year or 90 days after the end of the state of emergency, whichever came first.

Making her case for why the justices should throw out the suit, the U.S. Solicitor General called the Massachusetts tax rule “idiosyncratic” and “temporary.” In reality, though, it is anything but.

The case is as relevant as ever and would have set national standards for how states can tax those who telecommute, as the issue is not exclusive to New England.

Similar lawsuits have been raised in Ohio on the behalf of workers who commute to a different city for work, like Columbus or Cincinnati, and still had to pay higher income tax due to a bill, House Bill (HB) 197, passed in March 2020.

In another, more extreme case, Dr. Manal Morsy is seeking to declare the law unconstitutional in Morsy v. Dumas, as she lives in Pennsylvania but commutes to work in Cleveland. Ms. Morsy’s income was taxed by Cleveland during the pandemic, despite her not having stepped foot in the state of Ohio for over a year.

In its recently passed budget, Ohio actually added tax refunds for remote workers affected by the tax rule, thus backtracking and weakening HB 197.

At least for some workers, working from home is here to stay following the pandemic. According to a recent report by Willis Towers Watson, employers expect about 37% of workers to still be telecommuting at the end of 2021. That would make sense, given the flexibility and ease of remote work.

The issue of how this subset of workers is taxed is not going away anytime soon, and so it would have been an impactful and incredibly significant ruling had the high court taken the case. These unfair, impractical, and unjust tax policies boil down to modern taxation without representation, and they must be addressed sooner than later.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Buckeye Institute Commentary COVID-19 Featured hb 197 income tax Income taxes Massachusetts Morsy v. Dumas new hampshire New Hampshire v. Massachusetts Opinion remote work remote work taxes samuel alito SCOTUS Supreme Court tax refunds Taxes work from home
Previous ArticlePeople are leaving unemployment rolls faster in states that are ending enhanced benefits
Next Article Hospital group pushes for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for workers
Nick Linder

Nicholas Linder, of Cincinnati, is a communications Intern for Maine Policy Institute. He is going into his second year of studying finance and public policy analysis at The Ohio State University. On campus, he is involved with Students Consulting for Nonprofit Organizations and Business for Good.

Related Posts

Dangerous Company: Sam Patten’s Memoir Is a Riveting Insight Into 25 Years of American Foreign Policy

September 26, 2023

Mills: “Please Vote No On Question 3”

September 21, 2023

Who is Hansjörg Wyss, the Billionaire Swiss National Bankrolling Progressive Media and Politics in Maine?

September 20, 2023

Leave A Reply

Recent News

IRS Grants Tax Extension to Feb. 15 for Mainers Affected by Hurricane Lee

September 26, 2023

Portland City Council to Consider $134,000 150-Bed Expansion to Homeless Shelter by Emergency Declaration

September 26, 2023

New Maine CDC Director Recommends Masks and Latest COVID Booster for Everybody Ages 6 months and Older

September 25, 2023

Canadian House Speaker Apologizes After Parliament Gives ‘Hero’ Nazi Veteran a Standing Ovation

September 25, 2023

NASCAR Driver Austin Theriault Joins the Race for Maine’s Second Congressional District

September 25, 2023
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login below or Register Now.

Lost password?

Register Now!

Already registered? Login.

A password will be e-mailed to you.