Remote Worker Tax Case New Hampshire vs Massachusetts

Published: Jul 7, 2021
By: Gary Bingel
Share

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear New Hampshire vs Massachusetts—a case regarding remote workers. This means that the various state remote workforce provisions (such as Massachusetts’ provision requiring New Hampshire residents who worked in Massachusetts prior to COVID-19 to continue to pay Massachusetts tax on their wages while working from New Hampshire prior to the pandemic) remain in effect.

While the Supreme Court didn’t specifically validate these provisions, it didn’t strike them down either, essentially leaving them in place. This means that states with “convenience of the employer” rules (e.g., New York) will likely be more empowered to enforce its rules as well as be even more aggressive.

To the extent your clients have been adhering to these COVID-sourcing provisions and/or convenience of the employer provisions, they should be unaffected by the Court’s refusal to hear the case.

What's on Your Mind?

Gary Bingel

Gary Bingel, Partner-in-Charge of the National State and Local Tax Group, with expertise focuses on state and local income taxation, and sales and use tax consulting. He has significant experience serving clients in the manufacturing, retail, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, technology and service industries.

View Profile

Start a conversation with Gary