Helping you make wiser investment decisions

COVID-19 and 17 May: Tax Day Considerations for Clients

March 29, 2021 Jonathan H. Lander
COVID-19 and 17 May: Tax Day Considerations for Clients


With Tax Day in the United States delayed until 17 May, now might be a good time to talk to your clients about how pandemic-imposed working-from-home (WFH) arrangements may affect their tax liabilities.

The income tax system across the United States is something of a patchwork quilt. Of course, the federal income tax applies across the entire country. Yet, each state in the union is a separate sovereign with its own taxing powers.

Not all states impose an income tax, but those that do have their own unique systems for doing so. In addition to state income taxation, many municipalities also have the power to impose an income tax.

Subscribe Button

With so many taxing authorities, it is no wonder people spend so much time and money trying to determine their correct tax liability and to which sovereign that tax is owed. With many commercial offices having closed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers — our clients among them — have been forced to work from home and often their homes are located in a different state or municipality than their now-closed offices.

The relocation of workers and the work that they produce — from office to home — has challenged the various tax systems as states and municipalities try to raise revenue and employers and employees try to determine who has the power to tax the income earned from that work now that the workers are not actually commuting to the office.

Below we provide some discussion points advisers might consider raising with affected clients as 17 May approaches. Of course, the myriad local income tax rules dictate that you encourage your clients to seek the advice of a knowledgeable local tax advisor, if you’re not one yourself, who can help you and your clients resolve these issues.

Financial Analysts Journal Current Issue Tile

At its most basic, the question that arises from our unique federal system is whether a state may tax the income of a worker who is employed by, and provides work to, a company in that state, but who never physically sets foot in the state. Of course, this same question can play out within a state that allows its municipalities to impose an income tax. That is, can a town or city tax the income of a worker who is employed by, and provides work to, a company in that town or city, but who never physically sets foot in that town or city?

It is fairly clear that a state can impose a tax on a worker who lives outside of that state but who comes into the state to work for an employer located in the state.1

Of course, governments run on tax revenue and, even before the current pandemic, many states tried to tax income earned by nonresidents working for in-state employers from their out-of-state homes. New York State is a prime example. Imagine a client who works for a company in Manhattan, who lives in Connecticut, and who works part of the time in a New York office and part of the time from home in Connecticut. New York law taxes nonresident employees, as other states do, based only on the portion of the nonresident’s work days in New York.2

Yet, New York considers an employee’s work day as an out-of-state day for tax purposes only if the nonresident is obligated in the service of the employer to work remotely “of necessity, as distinguished from convenience.”3 Thus, if our New York client chooses to work from home rather than out of the employer’s necessity, New York would tax all of that client’s income, notwithstanding that they were working in Connecticut.4

Secure Retirement graphic

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought this taxing authority question into sharper focus as offices have closed and WFH arrangements have proliferated. For instance, Pennsylvania issued guidance for Pennsylvania employers whose employees are working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As stated in the guidance:5

Employees

“In summary, if an employee is working from home temporarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the department does not consider that as a change to the sourcing of the employee’s compensation. For non-residents who were working in Pennsylvania before the pandemic, their compensation would remain Pennsylvania sourced income for all tax purposes, including PA-40 reporting, employer withholding and three-factor business income apportionment purposes for S Corporations, partnerships and individuals. . . .

“Employers

“For a Pennsylvania employer with a non-resident employee temporarily working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic in a state that doesn’t have a reciprocity agreement with Pennsylvania, the department advises that the employee’s compensation remains Pennsylvania sourced, and the employer is required to withhold on the compensation.”

Massachusetts has taken a similar stance in regards to its taxpayers. Pursuant to Massachusetts promulgated emergency regulation 830 CMR 62.5A.3:

“ . . . for the duration of the Massachusetts COVID-19 state of emergency, all compensation received for personal services performed by a non-resident who, immediately prior to the Massachusetts COVID-19 state of emergency, was an employee engaged in performing such services in Massachusetts, and who, during such emergency, is performing such services from a location outside Massachusetts due solely to the Massachusetts COVID-19 state of emergency, will continue to be treated as Massachusetts source income subject to personal income tax under M.G.L. c. 62 and personal income tax withholding.”6

Relationship Alpha tile

Many workers employed by companies in Massachusetts live in adjacent states, including New Hampshire. New Hampshire does not impose an income tax on salaries and wages and has sought leave to sue Massachusetts in the US Supreme Court7 to prevent Massachusetts from taxing the income of New Hampshire residents who are working from home for Massachusetts employers.8 Massachusetts has characterized its action as simply maintaining the status quo with respect to the administration of its tax system during the COVID-19 emergency.9

With tax filing day rapidly approaching, what should a client employee who must pay income tax or a client employer who must withhold tax do?

For the Client Employer Who Must Withhold Tax

If you lack the expertise, encourage them to seek the advice of a local tax professional who is familiar with the rules for the jurisdictions in which they operate to determine their obligation to withhold income and pay income tax in regards to their employees’ wages.

For the Client Who Must File a Tax Return

Again, if you do not possess the necessary knowledge, advise them to consult a local tax professional who can assist them in determining how much tax they should pay and to which jurisdictions. If the state where they work and the state where they live do not have an agreement as to the imposition of income tax, they may wish to pay tax to the state where they work, notwithstanding that they have not actually been working in that state and, thereafter, file a claim for refund.10

Although this approach may be more expensive, it may be similar to what they would have done in a normal, pre-COVID-19 year. Also, by paying the tax and claiming a refund, they may avoid the imposition of interest and penalties for an underpayment of income tax. A skilled tax professional can help guide you and your clients in making these decisions.

Ad for Earning Investors' Trust Report

If life hasn’t become complicated enough as we navigate the new world imposed upon us by the COVID-19 pandemic, many of our clients must now unravel the uncertainties of state and local taxation as they are forced to work from home. As with any complicated problem, if you don’t have the expertise, you should seek it out. Help your clients find a tax and legal professional who can help make the appropriate decision for themselves, their families, and their wealth.


1. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV §1, permits a state to tax nonresidents working in that state (but, generally, not outside of the state). A state “generally may tax only income earned within the [state]”, not income that nonresidents earn outside the taxing state’s boundaries. Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450, 463 n. 11 (1995); Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 57 (1920) (“As to nonresidents, the jurisdiction extends only to their property owned within the State and their business, trade, or profession carried on therein, and the tax is only on such income as is derived from those sources.”); Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60, 75 (1920) (the state “. . . has jurisdiction to impose a tax of this kind upon the incomes of non-residents arising from any business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on within its borders, . . . ”).

2. 20 NYCRR § 132.18(a).

3. Id.

4. Such a case was actually litigated in New York. Zelinsky v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 1 N.Y. 3d 85 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1009 (2004). In that case the taxpayer split his time between his office in New York and his home in Connecticut. Perhaps unsurprisingly, New York’s highest court found that the taxpayer was working from home for his convenience, not the necessity of his employer, and imposed its income tax on the taxpayer’s entire income. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Other states also follow this path, such as Pennsylvania, 61 Pa. Code § 109.8, Nebraska, 316 Neb. Admin. Code § 22-003.01C(1), and Delaware, Del. Code Regs. 31-200-800, Director’s Ruling 71-13.3(b).

5. Telework During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, (last accessed 13 February 2021).

6. TIR 20-5: Massachusetts Tax Implications of an Employee Working Remotely due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Massachusetts Department of Revenue, 21 April 2020 (last accessed 13 February 2021).

7. New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, Docket No. 22O154, Motion For Leave To File Bill of Complaint (last accessed 13 February 2021).

8. New Hampshire seeks to invoke the U.S. Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction with respect to disputes between states, thereby bypassing all lower courts. U.S. Const. Article III § 2.

9. New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, Docket No. 22O154, Brief In Opposition to Motion For Leave to File Complaint, 11 December 2020, p. 3.

10. In fact, their only remedy may be to the administrative tribunals and courts of the state attempting to impose the tax. 28 U.S. Code § 1341.

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.


The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC”) uses the marketing names PNC Wealth Management® to provide investment consulting and wealth management, fiduciary services, FDIC-insured banking products and services, and lending of funds to individual clients through PNC Bank, National Association (“PNC Bank”), which is a Member FDIC, and to provide specific fiduciary and agency services through PNC Delaware Trust Company or PNC Ohio Trust Company. PNC does not provide legal, tax, or accounting advice unless, with respect to tax advice, PNC Bank has entered into a written tax services agreement. PNC Bank is not registered as a municipal advisor under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Investments: Not FDIC Insured. No Bank Guarantee. May Lose Value.

“PNC Wealth Management” is a registered mark of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

©2021 The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.

Image credit: ©Getty Images / Constantine Johnny


Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.

Jonathan H. Lander

As a senior vice president and a senior wealth strategist in PNC Wealth Management’s Philadelphia market, Jonathan Lander leads the deep and dynamic discovery process to achieve a mutual understanding of a client’s family, business (if applicable), and financial goals. He works with clients and their advisors to help develop a strategic financial plan utilizing an ongoing process that enables clients and their teams to understand what’s truly important to them in achieving peace of mind. He identifies and prioritizes their objectives and with their team develops tailored solutions to help achieve them. Lander has the knowledge, experience, and desire to help bring about successful outcomes as a trusted adviser. Lander first joined PNC in June 2004. After returning to the practice of law in 2013, he returned to PNC in November 2018. Although Lander primarily serves PNC Wealth Management’s Philadelphia / Southern New Jersey market, he has worked on large or complicated wealth planning matters in PNC’s other markets. He has also served as a consultant to members of PNC Wealth Management’s executive staff. Lander has practiced law in large law firms in both New York and Philadelphia. Most recently, prior to rejoining PNC Wealth Management, he was a partner in the law firm of Blank Rome, LLP, working in the firm’s Philadelphia and New York offices. Lander earned a BA, magna cum laude, from Drew University. He received a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Albany Law School of Union University and a master of laws (LL.M.) degree in taxation from New York University School of Law. Although no longer engaged in the active practice of law, Lander is a member of the bars of the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut and the bar of the United States Tax Court. Lander is a member of the American Bar Association. He served as Chair of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law (now known as the Real Property, Trust and Estate Law) Section’s Fiduciary Income Tax Committee from mid-2003 to mid-2006. He is also a member of the Philadelphia, Bucks County, and New York State Bar Associations.

Brian Hassett

As a senior vice president and a senior wealth strategist in PNC Wealth Management’s Cleveland market, Brian Hassett leads the deep and dynamic discovery process to achieve a mutual understanding of a client’s family, business (if applicable), and financial goals. He works with clients and their advisors to help develop a strategic financial plan utilizing an ongoing process that enables clients and their team to understand what’s truly important to them in achieving peace of mind. Hassett identifies and prioritizes client objectives and with their team develops tailored solutions to help achieve them. He has the knowledge, experience, and desire to help bring about successful outcomes as a trusted adviser. Prior to joining PNC, Hassett served as a financial planning manager with CIGNA Individual Financial Services, as a trusts and estates attorney with Smith & Condeni LLP, and as a wealth management consultant with UBS Americas. He earned his Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, where he was awarded the 1992 Society National Bank Estate Planning Competition Scholarship; he obtained his bachelor’s degree from Cornell University, School of Hotel Administration. Hassett is admitted to the practice of law in Ohio. He also earned the Certified Private Wealth Advisor sm (CPWA®) designation from the Investments & Wealth Institute, and the Certified Exit Planning Advisor (CEPA®) designation from the Exit Planning Institute.
He is a member of the Cleveland Metropolitan and Ohio State Bar Associations’ Estate Planning, Probate & Trust Law Sections. Residing with his wife, Rita, in Avon Lake, Ohio, Hassett enjoys golf and is an active certified open-water scuba diver.



Source link