Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Not-for-profit
May 15 tax deadline extended

04.24.20

Read this if you are a not-for-profit looking to learn more about tax filing deadlines.

State of New Hampshire: If your organization has a December 31 year-end, your annual report filing with the Charitable Trusts Unit and related payment are still due by May 15. If you are not ready to file, you may file Form NHCT-4 for an extension by May 15. If your organization has a June 30 year-end, you may email the State Attorney General to ask for additional time to July 15.

April 24, 2020, UPDATE: Commonwealth of Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has extended the Form PC filing requirement. All filing deadlines for annual charities filings for fiscal year 2019 have been extended by six months. This extension is in addition to the automatic six month extension that many not-for-profits receive. In addition, original signatures, photocopies of signatures, and e-signatures (e.g., DocuSign) will be accepted.

On April 9, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2020-23, its third round of tax filing relief guidance, which amplifies relief set forth in previously issued IRS notices providing relief to taxpayers affected by COVID-19. Notice 2020-23 also provides additional time to perform certain other actions. The Notice holds the special distinction of being the first to provide specific relief to not-for-profit organizations with return filing and tax payment obligations due between April 1 and July 15, 2020. The details are highlighted below:

Tax deadline extended to July 15, 2020
The Notice explicitly states that Form 990-T tax payment and filing obligations due during the period between April 1 and July 15 will be automatically extended to July 15, 2020. Additionally, Form 990-PF (and associated tax payments) as well as quarterly Federal estimated tax payments remitted via Form 990-W are also explicitly noted and are granted an extension to July 15.
    
While this is certainly good news, the more eagerly anticipated news is the Notice also includes “Affected Taxpayers” who are required to perform “Specified Time-Sensitive Actions” referenced in Revenue Procedure 2018-58. The Revenue Procedure specifically mentions exempt organizations as “Affected Taxpayers” required to perform “specified time-sensitive actions”—one such action being the filing of Form 990.

In summary (with the combined power of the Notice and Revenue Procedure), any entity with a Form 990, Form 990-EZ, Form 990-PF, Form 990-T, Form 990-W estimated tax filing requirement, Form 1120-POL or Form 4720 filing obligation due between April 1 and July 15, 2020 now have until July 15, 2020 to file. Needless to say this is very welcome news for an industry that like so many others, is being pushed to the brink during this turbulent and difficult time.

Additional extensions
Notice 2020-23 (with reference to Revenue Procedure 2018-58) also extends the due date of certain forms, notices, applications, and other exempt organization activities due between April 1 and July 15, 2020, until July 15, 2020 as noted below: 

  • Community health needs assessments (CHNAs) and Implementation Strategies
  • Application for Recognition of Exemption (Forms 1023 and 1024) 
  • Section 501(h) Elections and Revocations (Form 5768)
  • Information Return of US Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations (Form 5471)
  • Political Organization Notices and Reports (Forms 8871 and 8872)
  • Notification of Intent to Operate as a Section 501(c)(4) Organization (Form 8976) 

We are here to help
Please contact the BerryDunn not-for-profit tax team if you have any questions, or would like to discuss your specific situation.

Related Services

Related Professionals

Principals

Read this if you are at a not-for-profit organization.

There is no question that cryptocurrency has been gaining in popularity over the past few years. It may be hard to believe, but Bitcoin, the first and most commonly known form of cryptocurrency, has been around since the good old days of 2009! What was once only seen as a quasi-asset traded solely on the dark web by a handful of private yet savvy investors has recently begun to step out into the light. With this newly found mainstream popularity come many questions from the not-for-profit (NFP) sector about how their organizations should proceed when it comes to donations of cryptocurrency, and how they might benefit (or not) from doing so. 

This article will answer some of the questions we’ve received from clients in this area and attempt to shed some light on the tax reporting and compliance requirements around cryptocurrency donations for not-for-profit organizations, as well as other topics not-for-profit organizations should consider before dipping their toes into the crypto current.

So, what exactly is cryptocurrency? 

Cryptocurrency is a digital asset. It generally has no physical form (no actual coins or paper money). Further, it is not issued by a central bank and is largely unregulated. Its value is dependent upon many factors, the largest being supply and demand.

Can a not-for-profit organization accept cryptocurrency as a donation?

Yes! For tax purposes, cryptocurrency is considered noncash property, and is perfectly acceptable for not-for-profit organizations to accept.

With that said, NFPs absolutely need to review and update their gift acceptance policies as necessary as to whether or not they are willing to accept cryptocurrency. Having a clear and established policy position in place one way or the other can mitigate any confusion or misunderstanding between the organization and a potential donor.

The organization may also want to consider adding language to the policy regarding its intent to either hold the asset or sell it as soon as administratively possible. A savvy donor may request that the organization hold the cryptocurrency donation for a period of time after the donation is made, so organizations will want to have clear policies in place.

What about acknowledging the donor’s gift?

Standard donor acknowledgement rules still apply. Any donation of $250 or more requires a standard “thank you” acknowledgement to the donor. Remember, the IRS has deemed cryptocurrency to be noncash property, which means a description of the donated property (but not its value) should be mentioned in the donor acknowledgement.

Are there any other forms I need to be aware of?

Yes. Forms 8283 & 8282 apply to donations of cryptocurrency. Where the donation is noncash, the donor should be providing the organization with Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, for a claimed value of more than $500. Further, if the claimed value is more than $5,000, the Form 8283 should be accompanied by a qualified appraisal report. Form 8283 should be signed by the donor, the qualified appraiser (if applicable), as well as the recipient organization upon acceptance.

NOTE: Form 8283, Part V, Donee Acknowledgement, contains a yes/no question asking if the organization intends to use the property for an unrelated use. Where the property in question is cryptocurrency, the answer to this question is likely always to be ‘yes’.

Should the organization sell the underlying cryptocurrency within three years of acceptance, the organization must complete Form 8282, Donee Information Return, and file a copy with the IRS as well as providing a copy to the original donor. Other rules apply if the organization transfers the property to a successor donee.

NOTE: Organizations may want to consider referencing the Forms 8283 & 8282 in their aforementioned gift acceptance policy.

How is a cryptocurrency donation reported on the financial statements and Form 990?

If donated and held by the organization as of the end of the year, it will be reported as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, and contribution revenue on the statement of activities. 

Similar reporting would follow for 990 purposes—the donation would be reported as part of noncash contribution revenue with additional reporting on 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, and Schedule M, Noncash Contributions, as necessary.

Why should I accept cryptocurrency?

This is by far the hardest question to answer, for a variety of reasons. There is no question that cryptocurrency has its risks. Cryptocurrency is known to be highly volatile. Bitcoin, which originally was valued at eight cents per coin in 2010 soared to an all-time high of over $63,000 back in April of 2021—and then two months later sold for around $34,000 per coin. And who could forget the recent Dogecoin (I’m still not sure how to pronounce that) phenomenon? It too in recent months became a sensation only to see its value plummet by almost 30% in a single day after an appearance by Elon Musk on Saturday Night Live (it did subsequently rebound after a Musk tweet).

The fact is no one really knows where the value of cryptocurrency is headed, so should a not-for-profit organization decide to proceed, you should be aware it may not be worth what it was when originally accepted, which could be either good or bad depending on the day. Ultimately, any value is still good for a not-for-profit organization, but the risks with cryptocurrency and its volatility are very real.

Other things to know about crypto

As of right now, cryptocurrency has its own trading platforms. Robinhood, a platform in the news recently when it halted trading of Gamestop’s stock when speculative traders got the price to soar to all new highs, being the most well known. Large investment firms are well on their way to creating their own platforms as cryptocurrency gains in popularity, so we certainly recommend speaking with your current investment advisors to find the platform that best suits your needs.

Cryptocurrency is held in a digital wallet, which can only be accessed by a password, or private keys. Digital wallets can be stored locally on a computer, but there are also web-based wallets.

There have been horror stories about people losing or forgetting passwords, ultimately rendering the cryptocurrency worthless because it cannot be accessed. Cryptocurrency, due to its private nature, is very desirable by hackers who could also potentially access the wallet and steal its contents. And if stored locally, the currency could be lost forever if the computer containing the wallet were to become corrupted or compromised.

Organizations holding cryptocurrency will need to ensure proper internal controls are in place to make sure the funds are secure and cannot be easily accessed or potentially stolen. Working with your internal IT department is a good strategy here. The questions above are not intended to be all inclusive. Cryptocurrency is still finding its way in the world and we’ll continue to keep an eye on any developments and keep clients up to date as cryptocurrency continues to expand its reach and as further guidance is issued.

If you have any questions, please contact me or another member of our not-for-profit tax services team. We're here to help.

Article
Cryptocurrency and the charitable contribution conundrum

Of all the changes that came with the sweeping Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in late 2017, none has prompted as big a response from our clients as the changes TCJA makes to the qualified parking deduction. Then, last month, the IRS issued its long-waited guidance on this code section in the form of Notice 2018-99

We've taken a look at both the the original provisions, and the new guidance, and have collected the salient points and things we think you need to consider this tax season. For not-for-profit organizations, visit my article here. And for-profit companies can read here.  

Article
IRS guidance on qualified parking: Our take

IRS Notice 2018-67 Hits the Charts
Last week, in addition to The Eagles Greatest Hits (1971-1975) album becoming the highest selling album of all time, overtaking Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the IRS issued Notice 2018-67its first formal guidance on Internal Revenue Code Section 512(a)(6), one of two major code sections added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that directly impacts tax-exempt organizations. Will it too, be a big hit? It remains to be seen.

Section 512(a)(6) specifically deals with the reporting requirements for not-for-profit organizations carrying on multiple unrelated business income (UBI) activities. Here, we will summarize the notice and help you to gain an understanding of the IRS’s thoughts and anticipated approaches to implementing §512(a)(6).

While there have been some (not so quiet) grumblings from the not-for-profit sector about guidance on Code Section 512(a)(7) (aka the parking lot tax), unfortunately we still have not seen anything yet. With Notice 2018-67’s release last week, we’re optimistic that guidance may be on the way and will let you know as soon as we see anything from the IRS.

Before we dive in, it’s important to note last week’s notice is just that—a notice, not a Revenue Procedure or some other substantive legislation. While the notice can, and should be relied upon until we receive further guidance, everything in the notice is open to public comment and/or subject to change. With that, here are some highlights:

No More Netting
512(a)(6) requires the organization to calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI), including for purposes of determining any net operating loss (NOL) deduction, separately with respect to each such trade or business. The notice requires this separate reporting (or silo-ing) of activities in order to determine activities with net income from those with net losses.

Under the old rules, if an organization had two UBI activities in a given year, (e.g., one with $1,000 of net income and another with $1,000 net loss, you could simply net the two together on Form 990-T and report $0 UBTI for the year. That is no longer the case. From now on, you can effectively ignore activities with a current year loss, prompting the organization to report $1,000 as taxable UBI, and pay associated federal and state income taxes, while the activity with the $1,000 loss will get “hung-up” as an NOL specific to that activity and carried forward until said activity generates a net income.

Separate Trade or Business
So, how does one distinguish (or silo) a separate trade or business from another? The Treasury Department and IRS intend to propose some regulations in the near future, but for now recommend that organizations use a “reasonable good-faith interpretation”, which for now includes using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in order to determine different UBI activities.

For those not familiar, the NAICS categorizes different lines of business with a six-digit code. For example, the NAICS code for renting* out a residential building or dwelling is 531110, while the code for operating a potato farm is 111211. While distinguishing residential rental activities from potato farming activities might be rather straight forward, the waters become muddier if an organization rents both a residential property and a nonresidential property (NAICS code 531120). Does this mean the organization has two separate UBI rental activities, or can both be grouped together as rental activities? The notice does not provide anything definitive, but rather is requesting public comments?we expect to see something more concrete once the public comment period is over.

*In the above example, we’re assuming the rental properties are debt-financed, prompting a portion of the rental activity to be treated as UBI.

UBI from Partnership Investments (Schedule K-1)
Notice 2018-67 does address how to categorize/group unrelated business income for organizations that receive more than one partnership K-1 with UBI reported. In short, if the Schedule K-1s the organization receives can meet either of the tests below, the organization may treat the partnership investments as a single activity/silo for UBI reporting purposes. The notice offers the following:

De Minimis Test
You can aggregate UBI from multiple K-1s together as long as the exempt organization holds directly no more than 2% of the profits interest and no more that 2% of the capital interest. These percentages can be found on the face of the Schedule K-1 from the Partnership and the notice states those percentages as shown can be used for this determination. Additionally, the notice allows organizations to use an average of beginning of year and end of year percentages for this determination.

Ex: If an organization receives a K-1 with UBI reported, and the beginning of year profit & capital percentages are 3%, and the end of year percentages are 1%, the average for the year is 2% (3% + 1% = 4%/2 = 2%). In this example, the K-1 meets the de minimis test.

There is a bit of a caveat here—when determining an exempt organization's partnership interest, the interest of a disqualified person (i.e. officers, directors, trustees, substantial contributors, and family members of any of those listed here), a supporting organization, or a controlled entity in the same partnership will be taken into account. Organizations need to review all K-1s received and inquire with the appropriate person(s) to determine if they meet the terms of the de minimis test.

Control Test
If an organization is not able to pass the de minimis test, you may instead use the control test. An organization meets the requirements of the control test if the exempt organization (i) directly holds no more than 20 percent of the capital interest; and (ii) does not have control or influence over the partnership.

When determining control or influence over the partnership, you need to apply all relevant facts and circumstances. The notice states:

“An exempt organization has control or influence if the exempt organization may require the partnership to perform, or may prevent the partnership from performing, any act that significantly affects the operations of the partnership. An exempt organization also has control or influence over a partnership if any of the exempt organization's officers, directors, trustees, or employees have rights to participate in the management of the partnership or conduct the partnership's business at any time, or if the exempt organization has the power to appoint or remove any of the partnership's officers, directors, trustees, or employees.”

As noted above, we recommend your organization review any K-1s you currently receive. It’s important to take a look at Line I1 and make sure your organization is listed here as “Exempt Organization”. All too often we see not-for-profit organizations listed as “Corporations”, which while usually technically correct, this designation is really for a for-profit corporation and could result in the organization not receiving the necessary information in order to determine what portion, if any, of income/loss is attributable to UBI.

Net Operating Losses
The notice also provides some guidance regarding the use of NOLs. The good news is that any pre-2018 NOLs are grandfathered under the old rules and can be used to offset total UBTI on Form 990-T.

Conversely, any NOLs generated post-2018 are going to be considered silo-specific, with the intent being that the NOL will only be applicable to the activity which gave rise to the loss. There is also a limitation on post-2018 NOLs, allowing you to use only 80% of the NOL for a given activity. Said another way, an activity that has net UBTI in a given year, even with post-2017 NOLs, will still potentially have an associated tax liability for the year.

Obviously, Notice 2018-67 provides a good baseline for general information, but the details will be forthcoming, and we will know then if they have a hit. Hopefully the IRS will not Take It To The Limit in terms of issuing formal guidance in regards to 512(a)(6) & (7). Until they receive further IRS guidance,  folks in the not-for-profit sector will not be able to Take It Easy or have any semblance of a Peaceful Easy Feeling. Stay tuned.

Article
Tax-exempt organizations: The wait is over, sort of

Read this if you are a plan sponsor of employee benefit plans.

This article is the seventh in a series to help employee benefit plan fiduciaries better understand their responsibilities and manage the risks of non-compliance with Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requirements. You can read the previous articles here.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged individuals and organizations to continue operating during a time where face-to-face interaction may not be plausible, and access to organizational resources may be restricted. However, life has not stopped, and participants in your employee benefit plan may continue to make important decisions based on their financial needs. 

To help you prepare for a potential IRS examination, we’ve listed some requirements for participants to receive Required Minimum Distributions (RMD), hardship distributions, and coronavirus-related distributions, recommendations of actions you can perform, and documentation to retain as added internal controls. 

Required Minimum Distributions

Recently, the IRS issued a memo regarding missing participants, beneficiaries, and RMDs for 403(b) plans. If an employee benefit plan is subject to the RMD rules of Code Section 401(a)(9), then distributions of a participant’s accrued benefits must commence April 1 of the calendar year following the later of 1) the participant attaining age 70½ or 2) the participant’s severance from employment. Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020, RMDs was temporarily waived for retirement plans for 2020. This change applied to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k), 403(b), 457(b) plans and IRAs. 

In addition, RMDs were waived for IRA owners who turned 70½ in 2019 and were required to take an RMD by April 1, 2020 and have not yet done so. Do note the waiver will not alter a participant’s required beginning date for purposes of applying the minimum distribution rules in future periods. Although you may be applying this waiver during 2020, it is important you prepare to make RMDs once the waiver period ends by verifying participants eligible to receive RMDs are not “missing.”

There are instances in which plans have been unable to make distributions to a terminated participant due to an inability to locate the participant. In this situation, the responsible plan fiduciary should take the following actions in applying the RMD rules:

  1. Search the plan and any related plan, sponsor and publicly available records and/or directories for alternative contact information;
  2. Use any of the following search methods to locate the participant: a commercial locator service, a credit reporting agency, or a proprietary internet search tool for locating individuals; and
  3. Attempt to initiate contact via certified mail sent to the participant’s last known mailing address, and/or through any other appropriate means for any known address(es) or contact information, including email addresses and telephone numbers.

If the plan is selected for audit by the IRS and the above actions have been taken and documented by the plan, the IRS instructs employee plan examiners not to challenge the plan for violation of the RMD rules. If the plan is unable to demonstrate that the above actions have been taken, the employee plan examiners may challenge the plan for violation of the RMD rules.

We typically recommend management review plan records to determine which participants have attained age 70½. Based on the guidelines outlined above, we recommend plans document the actions they have taken to contact these participants and/or their beneficiaries.

Hardship distribution rules

A common issue we identify during our employee benefit plan audits is that the rules for hardship distributions are not always followed by the plan sponsor. If the plan allows hardship withdrawals, they should only be provided if (1) the withdrawal is due to an immediate and heavy financial need, (2) the withdrawal must be necessary to satisfy the need (you have no other funds or ways to meet the need), and (3) the withdrawal must not exceed the amount needed. You may have noted we did not add the plan participant must have first obtained all distribution or nontaxable loans available under the plan to the list of requirements above. This is due to the recently enacted Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the Act), which removed the requirement to obtain available plan loans prior to requesting a hardship. Thus, the removal of this requirement may increase the number of eligible participants to receive hardship withdrawals, if the three requirements noted are satisfied. The plan sponsor should maintain documentation the requirements for the hardship withdrawal have been met before issuing the hardship withdrawal.

The IRS considers the following as acceptable reasons for a hardship withdrawal:

  1. Un-reimbursed medical expenses for the employee, the employee’s spouse, dependents or beneficiary.
  2. Purchase of an employee's principal residence.
  3. Payment of college tuition and related educational costs such as room and board for the next 12 months for the employee, the employee’s spouse, dependents, beneficiary, or children who are no longer dependents.
  4. Payments necessary to prevent eviction of the employee from his/her home, or foreclosure on the mortgage of the principal residence.
  5. For funeral expenses for the employee, the employee’s spouse, children, dependents or beneficiary.
  6. Certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence.
  7. Expenses and losses incurred by the employee as a result of a disaster declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provided that the employee’s principal residence or principal place of employment at the time of the disaster was located in an area designated by FEMA for individual assistance with respect to the disaster.

Prior to the enactment of the Act, once a hardship withdrawal was taken, the plan participant would not be allowed to contribute to the plan for six months following the withdrawal. The Act repealed the six-month suspension of elective deferrals, thus plan participants are allowed to continue making contributions to the plan in the pay period following the hardship withdrawal. Prior to the Act we had seen instances where the plan participant was allowed to continue making contributions after the hardship withdrawal was taken. Now we would expect participants who received a hardship distribution to continue making elective deferrals following receipt of the distribution.

Coronavirus-related distributions

Under section 2202 of the CARES Act, qualified participants who are diagnosed with coronavirus, whose spouse or dependent is diagnosed with coronavirus, or who experience adverse financial consequences due to certain virus-related events including quarantine, furlough, or layoff, having hours reduced, or losing child care, are eligible to receive a coronavirus-related distribution. 

Distributions are considered coronavirus-related distributions if the participant or his/her spouse or dependent has experienced adverse effects noted above due to the coronavirus, the distributions do not exceed $100,000 in the aggregate, and the distributions were taken on or after January 1, 2020 and on or before December 30, 2020.  Such distributions are not subject to the 10% penalty tax under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 72(t), and participants have the option of including their distributions in income ratably over a three year period, or the entire amount, starting in the year the distribution was received. Such distributions are exempt from the IRC § 402(f) notice requirement, which explains rollover rules, as well as the effects of rolling a distribution to a qualifying IRA and the effects of not rolling it over. Also, participants can be exempt from owing federal taxes by repaying the coronavirus-related distribution. 

Participants receiving this distribution have a three-year window, starting on the distribution date, to contribute up to the full amount of the distribution to an eligible retirement plan as if the contribution were a timely rollover of an eligible rollover distribution. So, if a participant were to include the distribution amount ratably over the three-year period (2020 – 2022), and the full amount of the distribution was repaid to an eligible retirement plan in 2022, the participant may file amended federal income tax returns for 2020 and 2021 to claim a refund for taxes paid on the income included from the distributions, and the participant will not be required to include any amount in income in 2022. We recommend the plan sponsor maintain documentation supporting the participant was eligible to receive the coronavirus-related distribution. 

There is much uncertainty due to the current status of the COVID-19 pandemic, and this has forced many of our clients to review and alter their control environments to maintain effective operations. With this uncertainty comes changes to guidance and treatment of plan transactions. We have provided our current understanding of the guidance the IRS has provided for the treatment surrounding distributions, specifically RMDs, hardship distributions, and coronavirus-related distributions. If you and your team have any additional questions which may be specific to your organization or plan, an expert from our Employee Benefits Audit team will be gladly willing to assist you. 
 

Article
Defined contribution plan distributions: Considerations and recommendations

Read this if you are a New Hampshire resident, or a business owner or manager with telecommuting employees (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

In late January, the Supreme Court asked the Biden Administration for its views on a not-so-friendly neighborly dispute between the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is famous amongst its neighboring states for its lack of sales tax and personal income tax. Because of the tax rules and other alluring features, thousands of employees commute daily from New Hampshire to Massachusetts. Overnight, like so many of us, those commuters were working at home and not crossing state boundaries.

As a result of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders, Massachusetts issued temporary and early guidance, directing employers to maintain the status quo. Keep withholding on your employees in the same manner that you were, even though they may not be physically coming into the state. New Hampshire was against this directive from day one and sought to sue Massachusetts over its COVID-19 telecommuting rules for employees who had previously been sitting in an office in the Bay State. The final nail in the coffin was an extension of the guidance in October. 

New Hampshire’s position
New Hampshire took particular issue because it does not impose an Individual Income Tax on wages and it believed that the temporary regulations issued by the Commonwealth overstepped or disregarded New Hampshire’s sovereignty—in violation of the both the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Each clause has historically prohibited a state from taxing outside its borders and limits tax on non-residents. For Massachusetts employers to continue withholding on New Hampshire residents' wage earnings, New Hampshire argues, Massachusetts is imposing a tax within New Hampshire, contrary to the Constitution.

What makes the New Hampshire situation unique is that it does not impose an income tax on individuals, a “defining feature of its sovereignty”, the state argues. New Hampshire would say that its tax regime creates a competitive advantage in attracting new business and residents. Maine residents, subject to the same Massachusetts rules, would receive a corresponding tax credit on their Maine tax return, making them close to whole between the two states. Because there is no New Hampshire individual income tax, their residents are out of pocket for a tax that they wouldn’t be subject to, but for these regulations.

Massachusetts’ position
Massachusetts' intention behind the temporary regulations was to maintain pre-pandemic “status quo” to avoid uncertainty for employees and additional compliance burden on employers. This would ensure employers would not be responsible for determining when an employee was working, for example, at their Lake Winnipesaukee camp for a few weeks, or their relative’s home in Rhode Island. 

Additionally, states like New York and Connecticut have long had “convenience of the employer” laws on the books which imposed New York tax on telecommuting non-residents. Additionally, Massachusetts provided that a parallel treatment will be given to resident employees with income tax liabilities in other states who have adopted similar sourcing rules, i.e., a Massachusetts resident working for a Maine employer.

Other voices
The US Supreme Court requested a brief from the Biden administration. Additionally, many states wrote to the court on behalf of New Hampshire. To demonstrate the impact a decision against New Hampshire could have, New Jersey said that it expects to issue $1.2 Billion in tax credits to its residents because New York declined to loosen their strict telecommuting rules. In the final days before the Court recessed, it declined to hear the case brought by the State of New Hampshire against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Had the Court decided to move forward with the case, it stood to impact long-standing, pre-pandemic telecommuting rules by New York and others.

What now?
For Massachusetts employers specifically, you should review current withholdings and ensure compliance with the temporary regulations. The state of emergency has been lifted in Massachusetts, and the rules have an end date of September 19, 2021. Employers who haven’t been following the regulations will have a costly tax exposure to correct. 

Massachusetts’ temporary regulations were not unique as dozens of states issued temporary regulations asserting a “status quo” regime for those employees who would normally be commuting outside their home state. Unwinding from the pandemic is going to be a long road, and for all employers, it’s important that you review the rules in each state of operation and confirm that the proper withholding is made.

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact the state and local tax consulting team. We’re here to help.

Article
New Hampshire v. Massachusetts: Sovereignty or status quo?