State Taxation of Telecommuting

The year 2020 has brought us a new state tax issue.

To be fair, the issue is not totally new, but it has taken on importance with stay-at-home mandates.

Here is the issue: You work in one state but live in another. Which state gets to tax you when you are working from home?

Let’s start with the general rule: state taxation belongs to the state where the employee performs services, not the state where the employee resides. The concept is referred to as “sourcing,” and it is the same reason a state can tax you if you have rental real estate there.

Let’s follow that with the first exception: states can agree to not follow the general rule. Ohio, for example, has a reciprocal agreement with Kentucky. The agreement provides that an employee will be taxed by his/her state of residence, not by the state where the employee works.   A Kentucky resident working in Ohio, for example, will be taxed by Kentucky and not by Ohio.

Let’s pull away from the Cincinnati tristate area, however. That reciprocal agreement makes too much sense.

We need two other states: let’s use Iowa and Missouri.

One lives in Iowa and commutes to Missouri. Both states have an individual income tax. We have 2020, COVID and stay-at-home. An employee of a Missouri employer works from home, with home being Iowa.

Which state gets to tax?

This one is simple. Iowa.

Why?

Because both states have the same rule: the state of residence gets to tax a telecommuter.

So where is the issue in this area?

With states that are … less reasonable … than Iowa and Missouri.

Let’s go to Captain Obvious: New York.

New York has a “convenience of the employer” addendum to the above discussion. Under this rule, New York asks why the employee is working remotely: is it for the convenience of the employer, or is it for the convenience of the employee? The tax consequence varies depending on the answer.

* If for the convenience of the (New York) employer, then the employee’s state of residence has the first right to tax.

* If for the convenience of the (nonresident) employee, then New York has the first right to tax.

We for example have a Tennessee client with a New York employer who walked into this issue. He lives and works in Memphis, infrequently travelling to New York. We were able to resolve the matter, but New York initially went after him rather aggressively.

How does New York’s rule work with 2020 and COVID?

It doesn’t.

All those employees not commuting to New York were very much observing the convenience of their employer.

Clearly, this was an unacceptable answer to New York.

Let’s change the rule, said New York: the employee’s “assigned or primary” location will now control. If my accounting office was located in New York, for example, that would be my “assigned or primary” office and New York could tax me, no matter where I was.

How could I avoid that result? I would need to have my employer open a bona fide office where I lived. Some people could do that. Most could not.

Yessir.

There is no evolving tax doctrine here. This is ad hoc and reactive taxation, with much caprice, little constancy and the sense that New York will say and do whatever to lift your wallet.

There are few other states that follow this “convenience” rule: Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey come to mind. It is more convenient for them to tax you than not to tax you, to reword the rule.

COVID introduced us to two more states feuding over the taxation of telecommuters: Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Massachusetts decreed that any employee who began working outside the state for “pandemic-related” circumstances would continue to be subject to Massachusetts income tax.

It is the same issue as New York, one might initially think. New Hampshire will allow a tax credit for the tax paid Massachusetts. The accounting fee goes up, but it works out in the end, right?

Nope.

Why?

New Hampshire does not tax W-2 income.

How do states like Massachusetts or New York justify their behavior?

There is an argument: Massachusetts and New York have roads, infrastructure, schools, universities, hospitals and so forth that attracted employers to locate there. Their tax is a fair and appropriate levy for providing and sustaining an environment which allows a person to be employed.

Got it.

Don’t buy it.

I grew up in Florida, which does not have an individual income tax. Somehow the state nonetheless has roads, infrastructure, schools, universities, hospitals and so forth. The only explanation must be divine intervention, it appears.

Additionally, if I lived in New Hampshire – and worked from there – I might prefer that my taxes go to New Hampshire. I after all would be using its roads, infrastructure, schools, universities, hospitals and so on, putting little – or no – demand on Massachusetts. I might in fact be quite pleased to not commute into Massachusetts regularly, if it all. It seems grotesque that Massachusetts will chase me across the fruited plains just because I need a job.

New Hampshire has filed a complaint against Massachusetts with the Supreme Court. The argument is rather simple: Massachusetts is infringing by imposing its tax on New Hampshire residents working in New Hampshire.  Interestingly, Connecticut and New Jersey have filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs supporting New Hampshire’s position. Their beef is with New York and not Massachusetts, but they are clearly interested in the issue.

I personally expect the expansion and growing acceptance of telecommuting to be a permanent employment change as we come out of COVID and its attendant restrictions. With that as context, the treatment of telecommuting may well be one of the “next big things” in taxation.

What Happens When Hacking Concerns Conflict With A State Electronic Payment Mandate?

Let’s travel to the Bay State for a taxpayer requesting reasonable cause against the imposition of penalties.  

The amount in dispute is $100.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Our protagonist is Jonathan Haar, and he lives in Massachusetts. On April 15, 2011 he had the audacity to file a paper extension and include a $19,517 check for his tax year 2010 state return. The paper extension and payment

“… did not comply with the requirements set forth in Technical Information Release (“TIR”) 04-30 (“TIR 04-30”), which states that if a payment accompanying an extension application equals $5,000 or more, such extension application and payment must be submitted electronically.”

Got it. The state says that it is less expensive to process electronic than paper tax filings and payments. Seems reasonable. How do we get people to follow along, however? One way is to make whatever the state wants mandatory.

Our protagonist unfortunately had travelled this path before, and he had been warned for tax year 2005 and penalized for year 2006.  Massachusetts had a tax recidivist! They assessed the above-mentioned $100 penalty on our ne-er-do-well.

If you were my client, I would have told you to pay the $100 and move on. Mr. Haar is not my client, and he refused to pay. He instead filed an appeal, which appeal went to the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board.

His argument?

“Mr. Haar maintained that the Commissioner’s electronic payment mandate is a ‘serious invasion of both [his] privacy and [his] personal business practices,’ as it exposes his finances to risk of cyber attack.”

 “I intentionally do no electronic banking nor direct bill paying, I have none of my credit cards linked to my bank accounts directly and I think anyone who does any of the above is exposing themselves to multiple risks of cybercrime and identity theft.”

Mr. Haar further expressed doubts as to the security of the computer systems used by the Department of Revenue (“DOR”), noting that "if the Pentagon can be hacked," he had little confidence that DOR could protect his – or anyone’s – personal data from theft.

Massachusetts argued that it had the authority to mandate electronic filing and payment, as well as assess penalties if a taxpayer failed to comply with their filing and payment mandates. Massachusetts does recognize exceptions for reasonable cause, but its own Administrative Procedure 633 (“AP 633”) provides that

… the fact that a taxpayer does not own a computer or is uncomfortable with electronic data or funds transfer will not support a claim for reasonable cause.”

COMMENT: Call me quaint, but I would say that someone not having a computer is prima facie reasonable cause for not being able to file an electronic return or transfer funds electronically. The issue I see with AP 633 is its absolutism: the language “will not support” leaves no room. Why not say instead “generally will not support,” if only to allow space for unexpected fact patterns? 

In support of its position, the DOR trotted out two officials: the first was Robert Allard, a tax auditor. He pointed out that Mr. Haar filed an electronic return, presumably through a professional preparer. I suppose that Mr. Allard felt that if one could electronically file then one should be able to electronically pay. 

The second was Theresa O’Brien-Horan, a 26-year employee and Deputy Commissioner, who testified that

… the mandate at issue in this appeal – requiring individual taxpayers who apply for an extension with an accompanying payment of $5,000 or more to file and pay electronically – is helpful to DOR because it maximized up-front revenue intake.”

… the $5,000 threshold was chosen because it would ‘impact 17% of the taxpayers, but … get the money banked for 84% of the revenue.”

You can virtually feel the customer service vapor emanating from Ms O’Brien- Horan.

When asked whether reasonable cause was the Massachusetts equivalent of an ”opt out,” Ms. O’Brien-Horan answered “yes.”

OBSERVATION: The IRS, for example, prefers that one file an electronic return. The IRS however did not put the burden on the taxpayer; rather it put the burden on the preparer. If a preparer prepares more than a minimal number of returns annually, the preparer is required to file the returns electronically. This is awkward, as the return belongs to the taxpayer and not to the preparer. The preparer is not allowed to release any return – even to the IRS – without the taxpayer’s approval. What does the preparer do if the taxpayer does not grant approval? The preparer includes yet-another-form with the return indicating that the taxpayer has “opted out.” This prevents the IRS from penalizing the preparer for not filing electronically.

If Mr. Haar’s position was reasonable, then Mr. Haar could “opt out,” irrespective of any self-serving Massachusetts Administrative Procedure.

Ms. O’Brien-Horan just didn’t think that Mr. Haar was being reasonable.

But the Board did.

“Given his reference to the hacking of the Pentagon’s computer system, and in light of the many well-publicized instances of large-scale thefts of financial information following computer breaches at businesses and other institutions, and the appellant’s consistent practice of avoiding electronic payment of all his bills, including his tax obligations, the Board found that the appellant’s failure to utilize the Commissioner’s mandated electronic tax payment to be reasonable.”

Two things strike me immediately.

The first is the cause for concern comprising Mr. Haar’s argument. It had not occurred to me to off-grid all of one’s banking transactions, but he gives one pause. I recently read the following on www.marketwatch.com, for example:

A Russian gang has stolen 1.2 billion user names and their passwords as well as more than 500 million email addresses, the New York Times reports.

The information came from more than 400,000 websites, according to the Times, which says researchers at Milwaukee-based Hold Security discovered the cyber heist.

Mr. Haar is highly cautious. His position is somewhat eccentric but not unfounded. A reasonable tax collection agency would have granted him this one and moved on.  

The second is the inanity of Massachusetts DOR. Rather than abate a $100 penalty, it preferred to pursue the matter, at who knows what cost to state and citizens. We know that cost would include Mr. Allard and Ms O’Brien-Horan’s payroll, not to mention that of their superiors, legal counsel and who-knows-what else. I can understand not wanting to set a precedent, but … really? My take is that the DOR is too well-funded if they have the time and money to pursue nonsense like this. Perhaps DOR budgets cutbacks are in order for Massachusetts.