United States: Supreme Court denies review of New Hampshire's lawsuit against Massachusetts

In brief

The Supreme Court has denied review of New Hampshire’s lawsuit against Massachusetts seeking to invalidate Massachusetts' controversial personal income tax sourcing regulation promulgated at on onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision was likely influenced by the acting US Solicitor General’s amicus brief arguing against the Supreme Court taking up the case. The Supreme Court has thus passed on reviewing the broader issue of whether and to what extent a state may impose its personal income tax on a nonresident telecommuting employee.


Contents

In depth

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue promulgated an emergency regulation that treated nonresidents who worked in Massachusetts before the pandemic as if they were still working in Massachusetts during the pandemic (“COVID Sourcing Regulation”).This was a targeted effort by Massachusetts to continue receiving personal income tax revenues from nonresidents during the state’s state of emergency. New Hampshire, which does not impose a personal income tax on its residents, viewed the COVID Sourcing Regulation as an infringement on its sovereignty because the COVID Sourcing Regulation would subject many New Hampshire residents to the Massachusetts personal income tax. Thus, New Hampshire filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint in the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin Massachusetts from enforcing the COVID Sourcing Regulation on constitutional grounds.

In response to the Supreme Court's invitation to weigh in on the matter, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to deny New Hampshire’s Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint and thus, reject review of New Hampshire's constitutional claim. Specifically, the Solicitor General argued that New Hampshire’s asserted interests — (i) Massachusetts’s alleged infringement on New Hampshire’s sovereign interests and (ii) New Hampshire’s concern that the COVID Sourcing Regulation would create a disincentive for individuals to relocate to New Hampshire — were not of a sufficient magnitude to warrant the Supreme Court’s exercise of its original jurisdiction. Moreover, the Solicitor General argued that a challenge to the COVID Sourcing Regulation brought by a New Hampshire resident through Massachusetts's established procures for challenging tax assessments would be a more appropriate vehicle for challenging the COVID Sourcing Regulation (as opposed to a potential battle between the two states). Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction, denying New Hampshire’s motion in an order on 28 June 2021.

Now that the Supreme Court has officially declined review in New Hampshire v. Massachusetts it is important to note what the decision does not mean. First, the Supreme Court’s decision does not bless or otherwise endorse the COVID Sourcing Regulation as constitutional. Indeed, the COVID Sourcing Regulation may still be subject to challenge by individuals affected by it. And perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court’s decision does not resolve or even address the broader issue of the limitation of state taxation of remote workers. Regardless of what ultimately happens with respect to the COVID Sourcing Regulation one thing is clear: the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally altered the way we work and remote work is here to stay. Clarification is needed as to how states may tax telecommuting employees.

For additional background on and insight into New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, please see our two blog posts on the topic, “SCOTUS Invites Acting Solicitor General to Weigh In on Ongoing Dispute Between Massachusetts and New Hampshire Regarding Controversial COVID-19 Sourcing Rule” and “The Sun Has Set On New Hampshire v. Massachusetts" available at https://www.saltsavvy.com/

Contact Information
Mike Shaikh
Partner at BakerMcKenzie
Los Angeles
mike.shaikh@bakermckenzie.com

Copyright © 2022 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.