Thread by @jbhenchman

MILLIONS of Americans this year telecommuted from their homes for the first time instead of working full-time in an office. Next April, many of those Americans (we at NTUF estimate at least 2.1 million) will be surprised to learn....

1/

...something that tax professionals generally understand: if you work somewhere for more than a few days, you will owe income tax in that jurisdiction.

Massachusetts seeks a further surprise:...

2/

abruptly expanding the scope of its income tax to cover people who used to commute to Massachusetts but currently work in another state due to the pandemic. Under that state's regulation, if you were working in Massachusetts last year or in January or February of this year...

3/

you are working "in" Massachusetts now.

This sets up grave risk of multiple taxation as multiple states claim a person is "in" their state on the same day.

4/

For example, take the 123,000 New Hampshire residents who formerly commuted to Massachusetts and have ceased doing so due to restrictions and health guidance surrounding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

5/

These individuals are not Massachusetts residents nor are they in Massachusetts as they earn income, but Massachusetts seeks to tax 100 percent of the income earned for the 0 percent of their time in the state.

6/

Once nexus in Massachusetts, always nexus in Massachusetts. Wherever you may be in the world today.

7/

This is an unprecedented claim of taxing power by one state over another’s residents, and if allowed to stand would create a massive expansion of individuals and businesses now subject to Massachusetts state taxes - and allow for a similar expansion for all fifty states.

8/

TODAY, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to take up a case to stop the Massachusetts practice. The brief asks the Court to accept New Hampshire's lawsuit against Massachusetts as a matter of original jurisdiction.

9/

Extended and indefinite periods of trailing nexus raise obvious Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause concerns, concerns that New Hampshire should be permitted to have Massachusetts answer for in a neutral judicial forum.

10/

Joining NTUF on our brief are:
Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire @AFP_NH Americans for Tax Reform @taxreformer
Cato Institute @CatoInstitute
Center for a Free Economy @CFEconomy
Center for Freedom and Prosperity @CFandP
...

11/

Also joining NTUF on our brief:
Florida TaxWatch @FloridaTaxWatch
Freedom Foundation of Minnesota @FreedomMN
FreedomWorks Foundation @FreedomWorks
Goldwater Institute @GoldwaterInst
Hispanic Leadership Fund @HispLeadFund
Independent Women’s Law Center @IWF
...

12/

Also joining NTUF on our brief:
60 Plus Association @60PlusAssoc
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council @sbecouncil
Tax Foundation @taxfoundation
Tax Foundation of Hawaii @HawaiiTax
and
Taxpayers Protection Alliance @Protectaxpayers

13/

Massachusetts’s action expands the taxation of non-residents beyond what is constitutionally permissible. The abrupt change in policy by Massachusetts is a power grab that harms taxpayers and intrudes on the sovereign powers of New Hampshire.

14/

The Supreme Court should allow New Hampshire the opportunity to make its case.

The case is New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, No. 22O154.

Link to docket: supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…

Link to our brief: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…

15/15