Why More Employers Are Getting SALT-y on Remote Work Arrangements

R. Pomp, J. Friedman
{"title":"Why More Employers Are Getting SALT-y on Remote Work Arrangements","authors":"R. Pomp, J. Friedman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3847963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the consequences of the extreme increase in remote work, due to the pandemic, on state taxation. Discussed in the article is state sourcing and apportioning of nonresident wage income, employer withholding tax obligations, and corporate tax nexus. <br><br>The authors predict an increase in litigation as a result of states seeking to retain the ability to tax nonresident wages. For example, New York considers employees to be working in-state (and thus subject to taxation) even when they are not physically present in New York so long as they are working remotely for reasons of personal convenience. But, the authors argue, the pandemic should be an exception: if an employee’s New York office is closed they have no choice but to work remotely. Furthermore, Massachusetts has issued an emergency rule that continues to treat nonresident employees as though they continue to commute into Massachusetts, even though they currently work from home. This, the article urges, is constitutionally problematic.<br><br>Some states have altered employer wage withholding obligations to ensure that remote employees are taxed based on where they commuted to prior to the pandemic: Massachusetts, Mississippi, and South Carolina are states that have enacted temporary trailing nexus policies. Illinois, Minnesota, and Maryland have indicated that employers are subject to wage withholding obligations if their employees are working remotely in those states. This article stresses that employers must know where their employees are working remotely from in order to comply with these obligations. <br><br>Finally, it is uncertain how the increase in remote work will affect corporate tax nexus. While case law supports subjecting out-of-state corporations to taxation as a result of in-state remote employees, it is not clear how the pandemic, and the temporary nature of today’s remote work, will be treated by the law. While the District of Columbia, Indiana, North Dakota, and South Carolina have clarified that corporate tax nexus will not be imposed due to the current circumstances, many states have remained silent on the matter. As a result, taxpayers are left to speculate about their compliance obligations.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"State & Local Government eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3847963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores the consequences of the extreme increase in remote work, due to the pandemic, on state taxation. Discussed in the article is state sourcing and apportioning of nonresident wage income, employer withholding tax obligations, and corporate tax nexus.

The authors predict an increase in litigation as a result of states seeking to retain the ability to tax nonresident wages. For example, New York considers employees to be working in-state (and thus subject to taxation) even when they are not physically present in New York so long as they are working remotely for reasons of personal convenience. But, the authors argue, the pandemic should be an exception: if an employee’s New York office is closed they have no choice but to work remotely. Furthermore, Massachusetts has issued an emergency rule that continues to treat nonresident employees as though they continue to commute into Massachusetts, even though they currently work from home. This, the article urges, is constitutionally problematic.

Some states have altered employer wage withholding obligations to ensure that remote employees are taxed based on where they commuted to prior to the pandemic: Massachusetts, Mississippi, and South Carolina are states that have enacted temporary trailing nexus policies. Illinois, Minnesota, and Maryland have indicated that employers are subject to wage withholding obligations if their employees are working remotely in those states. This article stresses that employers must know where their employees are working remotely from in order to comply with these obligations.

Finally, it is uncertain how the increase in remote work will affect corporate tax nexus. While case law supports subjecting out-of-state corporations to taxation as a result of in-state remote employees, it is not clear how the pandemic, and the temporary nature of today’s remote work, will be treated by the law. While the District of Columbia, Indiana, North Dakota, and South Carolina have clarified that corporate tax nexus will not be imposed due to the current circumstances, many states have remained silent on the matter. As a result, taxpayers are left to speculate about their compliance obligations.
为什么越来越多的雇主对远程工作安排持怀疑态度
本文探讨了疫情导致远程工作急剧增加对国家税收的影响。本文讨论了非居民工资收入的国家来源和分配、雇主预扣税义务和公司税关系。作者预测,由于各州寻求保留对非居民工资征税的能力,诉讼将会增加。例如,纽约认为雇员在本州工作(因此要纳税),即使他们不在纽约,只要他们是出于个人方便的原因远程工作。但是,作者认为,大流行应该是一个例外:如果员工的纽约办公室关闭,他们别无选择,只能远程工作。此外,马萨诸塞州发布了一项紧急规定,继续将非居民雇员视为继续通勤到马萨诸塞州,即使他们目前在家工作。这篇文章强调,这在宪法上是有问题的。一些州已经改变了雇主的工资预扣税义务,以确保远程员工根据他们在疫情前的通勤地点征税:马萨诸塞州、密西西比州和南卡罗来纳州是颁布了临时追踪联系政策的州。伊利诺斯州、明尼苏达州和马里兰州已经表示,如果雇员在这些州远程工作,雇主就有义务扣缴工资。这篇文章强调,为了遵守这些义务,雇主必须知道他们的员工在哪里远程工作。最后,还不确定远程工作的增加将如何影响企业税收关系。虽然判例法支持因州内远程雇员而对州外公司征税,但尚不清楚法律将如何对待这场大流行病以及当今远程工作的临时性质。虽然哥伦比亚特区、印第安纳州、北达科他州和南卡罗来纳州已经明确表示,由于目前的情况,将不会征收企业税,但许多州对此事保持沉默。因此,纳税人只能猜测自己的合规义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信