I do remember my MAD magazine. Which I loved long before I found out the founder was a chemistry major at Brooklyn Poly. (He dropped out.)
One of my favorite pieces was Spy v. Spy v. Spy. The absurdity of that comic reminds me of the complaint New Hampshire filed against Massachusetts in October 2020. Because the Commonwealth was taxing remote workers (who were in New Hampshire) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It seems that the Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) issued an emergency regulation (at first temporary, but then converted it to a final ruling) covering folks who normally work in Massachusetts, but because of COVID-19, were now working elsewhere (mostly at home). The end result of this rule is that these temporarily WFH (working from home) folks were still obligated to pay income taxes to Massachusetts.
New Hampshire wanted the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to enjoin Massachusetts from enforcing this rule. Moreover, they wanted Massachusetts to refund the money it collected (plus interest) from the non-residents who paid these taxes. Its claim: , “Massachusetts has unilaterally imposed an income tax within New Hampshire that New Hampshire, in its sovereign discretion, has deliberately chosen not to impose” (Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, p. 2). SCOTUS ruling was requested since (according to New Hampshire) the Massachusetts rule was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.
SCOTUS denied the request. (Only Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the motion.) No explanation was provided, but the Commonwealth averred that New Hampshire lacked standing (since it ‘personally’ did not suffer any injury).(The US Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief stating that only New Hampshire residents themselves who were affected by this rule could file such a claim.)
So, my warnings back a year ago (June 2020) and then again in January (2021) still obtain. Working from Home can create all kinds of financia headaches.
But people still have a chance to overrule these laws in the courts, then – they just have to file themselves rather than their state doing it on their behalf – if I am understanding this correctly? I can see the Court’s logic here in dismissing the case, as much as it would have been nice for them to actually rule one way or the other. I’m fortunate – I live in NY and when I worked in the office, worked in NY – but we have employees who live in another state (we are relatively close to a state border) and have been working from home since March of 2020.
Alana recently posted..Thunderbirds and Thunderstorms #SkywatchFriday
Not much luck doing that, Alana. I first reported this issue back in January (and clearly dealt with it for my clients). https://www.adjuvancy.com/wordpress/2021/01/12/wfh-problems/