59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–780 

MOBILE WORKFORCE STATE INCOME TAX SIMPLIFICATION 

ACT OF 2015 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOODLATTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2315] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2315) to limit the authority of States to tax certain income 

of employees for employment duties performed in other States, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 8 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 8 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 10 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 10 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 10 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 10 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 10 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 11 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

2 

1Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2011: Hearing on H.R. 1864 Before 

Subcomm. on Courts, Commercial & Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 

(2011) [hereinafter the ‘‘2011 Hearing’’] (testimony of Jeffrey A. Porter, Owner, Porter & Associates, CPAs, on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). 2 Id. 

3Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2013: Hearing on H.R. 1129 Before 

Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antirust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 33 39 (2014) (statement of Jeffrey A. Porter, Owner, Porter & Associates, 

CPAs, on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). 4 Id. 

5 New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Withholding on Wages Paid to Certain 

Nonresidents Who Work 14 Days or Fewer in New York State (July 2012) (available at http:// 

www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/memos/income/m12_5i.pdf). 6Porter, supra note 3. 

Purpose and Summary 

The Mobile Workforce Act provides a clear, uniform framework 

for when States may tax nonresident employees who travel to the 

taxing State to perform work. In particular, the bill prevents States 

from imposing income tax compliance burdens on nonresidents who 

work in a foreign state for fewer than 30 days in a year. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

Forty-three States and the District of Columbia levy a personal 

income tax on wages and partnership income.1 The State tax laws 

that determine when a nonresident must pay a foreign state’s income tax, and when employers must withhold this tax, are numerous and varied.2 Some have a days worked in-state threshold. For 

example, for 2014, a nonresident is subject to tax after working 59 

days in Arizona, 15 days in New Mexico, and 14 days in Connecticut.3 Others have a de minimis exception to employer withholding requirements based on wages earned. That threshold is 

$1,500 in Wisconsin, $1,000 in Idaho, $800 in South Carolina, and 

$300 a quarter in Oklahoma.4 Additional States with withholding 

thresholds include Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New York, 

North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Some 

State thresholds are tied to personal exemption, standard deduction or filing thresholds that can change each year. The remainder 

of relevant States tax income earned within their borders by nonresidents, even if the employee only works in the State for 1 day. 

Examples include New York, even though the State obligates employers to withhold wages only after 14 days.5

Some of these States exempt particular activities, such as training or professional development. Yet these exemptions will sometimes cover only the withholding requirement. The employee may 

still be required to file. 

These complicated rules impact everyone who travels for work 

and many industries including the retail, manufacturing, real estate, technology, food, services, and consulting industries. At the 

Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust 

Law’s 2014 hearing, a West Virginia tax practitioner described the 

burden on his construction and electrical linemen clients who travel frequently for short-term projects. He reported filing income tax 

returns in as many as 10 different States in a year for these workers.6 At the Subcommittee’s 2015 hearing, a building products company executive testified that the patchwork of laws resulted in the 

company issuing fifty W 2’s to a single employee for a single year. 

The executive also noted, regarding the compliance burden, that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

3 

7Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015: Hearing on H.R. 2315 Before 

Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 1 5 (2015) (written testimony of Lawrence F. Leaman, Vice President of Taxes, 

Masco Corporation). 8Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2013: Hearing on H.R. 1129 Before 

Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antirust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 42 72 (2014) (statement of Lori Brown, CPP, Director, Disbursements CACI 

International, Inc.). 9Porter, supra note 3. 10 Brown, supra note 8. 11Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107 204, § 404, 116 Stat. 745, 789 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 

§ 7262) (2002). 12 2007 Hearing, supra note 4, at 10 (statement of Rep. Henry ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson). 13 2011 Hearing at 13 (testimony of Jeffrey A. Porter, Owner, Porter & Associates, CPAs, on 

behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). 

‘‘many of our affected employees make less than $50,000 per year 

and have limited resources to seek professional advice.’’ 7

States generally allow a credit for income taxes paid to another 

State. However, it is not always dollar-for-dollar when local taxes 

are factored in. Furthermore, such credits provide no relief to residents of the nine States that do not impose income taxes. Such individuals have been found to bear an overall tax burden comparable to residents of States that do impose State income taxes, 

and thus are effectively subject to double taxation.8

There are substantial burdens on employers as well. For example, they must determine whether to withhold for a nonresident 

working in a particular State, which can be complicated. For example, Georgia has a three-part test looking at whether an employee 

has worked there for 23 days in a calendar quarter, whether more 

than 5 percent of the employee’s income is attributable to work in 

Georgia or whether the employee has received remuneration for 

services in Georgia that exceeds $5000.9

Temporary work assignments also require the employer to register for a withholding account, which can be ‘‘just as burdensome 

as trying to manage the tax itself.’’ 10 Employers must track employees’ work locations and time spent, which is often a manual 

process. 

Large businesses may have more resources, but they are also 

more tightly regulated. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires 

management to sign-off on the internal controls that ensure State 

tax compliance and requires auditors to certify management’s assessment.11 The diversity of State income tax laws requires public 

companies and their auditors to invest a significant amount of time 

ensuring that the company has withheld correctly for each employee, at great expense to the firm.12

In short, as a witness told the Subcommittee in 2014, 

‘‘[b]usinesses, including small businesses and family businesses, 

that operate interstate are subject to significant regulatory burdens 

with regard to compliance with nonresident State income tax withholding laws.’’ 13 These burdens raise costs, which are typically 

passed on to customers. 

The result is a significant burden on interstate commerce. Professor Walter Hellerstein testified in 2007 that States have a legitimate interest in assuring that workers earning income in a State 

‘‘pay their fair share . . . for the benefits and protections that the 

State provides.’’ However, that interest ‘‘has to be balanced against 

the burdens that are imposed on multi-state enterprises and on the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

4 

14 2007 Hearing, supra note 4, at 71 (statement of Walter Hellerstein, Francis Shackelford 

Distinguished Professor of Taxation Law, University of Georgia School of Law). 15Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015, H.R. 2315 § 2(a), 114th Congress (2015). 16 Id. § 2(b). 17 Id. § 2(c). 18 Id. § 2(d)(2). 19Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2013: Hearing on H.R. 1129 Before 

Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antirust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 14 30 (2014) (statement Maureen B. Riehl Vice President, Government Affairs 

Council On State Taxation (COST)). 20 Ernst & Young LLP, Estimates of State-By-State Impacts of The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Fairness And Simplification Act Prepared for The State Tax Research Institute (Jul. 

9, 2015) (available at http://www.cost.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=90612). 

conduct of interstate commerce by uncertain, inconsistent, and unreasonable withholding obligations imposed by the State.’’ 14

HOW THE MOBILE WORKFORCE ACT SIMPLIFIES THE STATE INCOME

TAX LAW REGIME

The Mobile Workforce Act would substantially simplify State income tax laws by imposing a uniform standard for nonresident taxation and employer withholding. The bill provides that an employee 

is not subject to income tax in a nonresident State unless the employee has worked for at least 30 days in that jurisdiction.15 This 

threshold is not continuous, so an employee that makes a number 

of short business trips to a State might still trip it. Once tripped, 

the withholding obligation is retroactive to the first day worked in 

the State. 

The bill further provides that an employer is not responsible for 

withholding on behalf of any employee who is not subject to a State 

income tax as a result of the bill.16 For purposes of determining 

penalties related to a failure to report or withhold, employers are 

entitled to rely on their employees’ report of days spent in a nonresident State unless the employer uses a time and attendance system for its employees.17

Finally, the bill exempts certain professional athletes, entertainers, and public figures who, because of their prominence, are 

paid on a per appearance basis. (i.e., they will not receive the 30- 

day exemption.)18 The rationale is that individuals like musical 

performers and professional athletes earn income specifically from 

playing at a venue in the foreign state. By contrast, even a highlypaid employee’s temporary presence in a foreign state is typically 

incidental to that employee’s job. 

COUNTERING ASSERTED CONCERNS

State revenue departments that oppose the bill raise several arguments. First, they invoke the source principle that income should 

be taxed where it is earned. This may be true generally, but this 

bill deals with bringing uniformity to a small set of de minimis exceptions, in order to reduce compliance costs. 

Indeed, an analysis from Ernst & Young, LLP, offered as testimony in the 111th Congress, found that the bill’s revenue impact 

is minimal. In particular, it predicted a net revenue change nationwide for States of merely one hundredth of 1 percent (.01%), which 

translates into a $42 million overall reduction in personal income 

taxes.19 A July 9, 2015 update to that analysis found nearly identical results.20 This seems reasonable, since for every nonresident 

whose income tax a State loses, the State gains from not having 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

5 

21Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2013: Hearing on H.R. 1129 Before 

Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antirust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 75 82 (2014) (Patrick Carter Director, Division of Revenue for the State of 

Delaware). 22Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015, H.R. 2315 § 2(c), 114th Congress (2015). 

to provide a credit to in-state residents who temporarily work and 

therefore currently pay taxes out of State. The result should approximately be a wash. The benefit is in reducing complexity and 

compliance burdens. 

Opponents cite an industry estimate that New York will lose be- tween $50 and $100 million. But the bill does not significantly alter 

the overall amount of income tax collected. The size of the pot remains the same. It is merely the apportionment that differs, which 

is appropriate in order to reduce compliance burdens and retain 

sensible limits on State regulatory authority over nonresidents. 

It is also true that approximately one-third of the States have entered into reciprocity agreements not to tax each other’s borderstate residents’ wages. But this still leaves two-thirds of the country not covered, and the existing agreements are geared toward 

regular commuters living on State borders, rather than workers 

traveling to multiple locations for temporary work. 

At previous Subcommittee hearings, witnesses representing State 

revenue departments, have raised a number of arguments centered 

on potential fraud and gaming of the system.21 For example, they 

object to provisions permitting employers to rely on employees’ estimates of time spent in other jurisdictions. They term this ‘‘voluntary reporting’’ that has not been effective in the income tax enforcement context. However, this allowance is made only for purposes of calculating employer penalties, not for determining the 

amount actually owed.22

More importantly, unlike in the general income tax context, 

there is little motive here for fraud or gaming. The amount of 

money at issue (taxes on less than thirty day’s wages) is minimal. 

Second, except in nine States, the employee will have to pay the 

tax anyway to that employee’s home State, so the only savings 

would be from minor rate differentials between the two jurisdictions. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Regulatory 

Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law held 1 day of hearings on 

H.R. 2315 and related bills H.R. 1643 and H.R. 2584 on June 2, 

2015. Testimony was received from Mr. Grover Norquist, President, 

Americans for Tax Reform; Mr. Douglas L. Lindholm, CEO & Executive Director of the Council on State Taxation; Mr. Lawrence F. 

Leaman, Vice President—Taxes, Masco Corporation; Ms. Julie P. 

Magee, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Revenue; and Mr. 

Dan L. Crippen, Executive Director, National Governors Association. 

Committee Consideration 

On June 17, 2015, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 2315 favorably reported, without amendment, 

by a rollcall vote of 23 to 4, a quorum being present. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

6 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

2315: 

1. Amendment #1, offered by Mr. Nadler and Mr. Jeffries. The 

Amendment lowers the threshold from 30 days to 14 before a State 

can tax the income of a nonresident temporarily working in a foreign state. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 7 to 

21. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .....................................

Mr. Smith (TX) ..........................................................

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) .........................................................

Mr. King (IA) ............................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .........................................................

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ...................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ...................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ......................................................... X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ...................................................... X 

Mr. Farenthold (TX) ..................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ..................................................... X 

Ms. Walters (CA) ....................................................... X 

Mr. Buck (CO) ............................................................ X 

Mr. Ratcliffe (TX) ....................................................... X 

Mr. Trott (MI) ............................................................ X 

Mr. Bishop (MI) ......................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ................. X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ......................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ....................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ......................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ...................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) .........................................................

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ......................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ..................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Cicilline (RI) ........................................................ X 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

7 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Peters (CA) .......................................................... X 

Total ............................................................. 7 21 

2. Motion to Report H.R. 2315. The bill will provide a uniform 

framework, including a 30-day threshold, for when States may tax 

nonresident employees who travel to the taxing State to perform 

work. The motion was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 23 to 4. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ..................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) .......................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) ......................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) ............................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .........................................................

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ...................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................

Mr. Marino (PA) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .........................................................

Mr. Labrador (ID) ...................................................... X 

Mr. Farenthold (TX) ..................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................ X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ..................................................... X 

Ms. Walters (CA) ....................................................... X 

Mr. Buck (CO) ............................................................

Mr. Ratcliffe (TX) ....................................................... X 

Mr. Trott (MI) ............................................................ X 

Mr. Bishop (MI) ......................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ................. X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ......................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ......................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ...................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ......................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ......................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ..................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................ X 

Mr. Cicilline (RI) ........................................................ X 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

8 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Peters (CA) .......................................................... X 

Total ............................................................. 23 4 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 2315, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 21, 2015. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, CHAIRMAN, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2315, the ‘‘Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Aurora Swanson (for 

Federal costs), who can be reached at 226 2860, and Jon Sperl (for 

intergovernmental mandates), who can be reached at 225 3220. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

9 

H.R. 2315—Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 

Simplification Act of 2015. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on June 17, 2015. 

H.R. 2315 would establish consistent criteria for States to determine State taxation and employer withholding for nonresidents 

who work in a State. CBO estimates that Federal taxation and employer withholding would not be affected by the legislation and that 

implementing the bill would have no effect on the Federal budget. 

Enacting H.R. 2315 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 2315 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by prohibiting States from taxing the income of employees who work in the 

State for fewer than 31 days. The prohibition would not apply to 

the income of professional athletes, entertainers, or public figures. 

UMRA includes in its definition of mandate costs any amounts that 

State governments would be prohibited from raising in revenues as 

a result of the mandate. The mandate costs of H.R. 2315 would include taxes that State governments would be precluded from collecting under the bill. 

Most States that levy a personal income tax allow residentsq to 

take a credit for income taxes that the residents pay to another 

State. The cost of the mandate would equal, for all States collectively, the difference between the amount of revenue that they 

would lose—from nonresidents who work in the State for fewer 

than 31 days—and the amount of revenue they would gain—from 

residents whose credits for payments to other States would be 

lower under the bill. Generally, States that have large employment 

centers close to a State border would lose the most revenue; States 

from which employees tend to commute would gain revenue. For 

example, New York would probably lose the largest amount of revenue—between $50 million and $125 million per year, according to 

State and industry estimates—and Illinois, Massachusetts, and 

California would face smaller losses. In contrast, New Jersey would 

probably gain revenue. Because States tax income at different rates 

and on different tax bases, the changes in tax revenues nationwide 

would not net to zero. 

On the basis of information from officials in a number of States, 

analysis of State tax data, and an analysis by Ernst & Young, CBO 

estimates that, for all States collectively, the bill would reduce revenues on a net basis by between $50 million and $100 million per 

year beginning in 2018, the first full year that the bill’s changes 

would be in effect. Given that range—stemming from the underlying uncertainty about the amount of revenue that States collect 

from nonresidents and the amount they would receive from residents whose credits would be lower under the bill—CBO cannot determine whether the net cost of the intergovernmental mandate in 

the bill would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA 

($77 million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation). 

H.R. 2315 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

10 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Aurora Swanson (for 

Federal costs) and Jon Sperl (for intergovernmental mandates). 

This estimate was approved H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H.R. 2315 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111 139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings 

The Committee estimates that H.R. 2315 specifically directs to be 

completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

551. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 2315 provides 

clear, uniform guidelines for when States may tax nonresident employees who travel to the taxing State to perform work. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 2315 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1. Short Title 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mobile Workforce State Income 

Tax Simplification Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. Limitations on State Withholding and Taxation of Employee Income 

Subsection (a)—A State may not subject nonresidents to personal 

income tax unless the nonresident is ‘‘present and performing employment duties’’’ for more than 30 days in the calendar year in 

which ‘‘the wages or other remuneration is earned.’’ 

Subsection (b)—No employer withholding requirement for nonresidents may be imposed unless the 30-day trigger is met, but 

once triggered, it is retroactive to Day 1 of the employees’ work instate. 

Subsection (c)—For purposes of determining penalties related to 

employers’ failures to withhold or report, employers may rely on an 

employee’s determination of the time spent in a nonresident State, 

unless (1) there is fraud or collusion to avoid taxation between the 

employer and employee; OR (2) the employer voluntarily ‘‘mainmstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

11 

23This description covers Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3). Paragraph (c)(2) merely underscores 

that the employer may rely on the employee, even if it could theoretically gather the necessary 

information from its records, provided that the employer does not maintain a specific tracking 

system described in Paragraph (c)(3). 1See e.g., Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015, H.R. 1643, the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2015, and 

H.R. 2584, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015: Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 4–6 (June 17, 2015) (statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–VA)) [hereinafter ‘‘2015 Markup’’]. 

tains a time and attendance system that tracks where the employee performs duties on a daily basis,’’ in which case that data 

must be used to calculate withholding requirements.23

Subsection (d)—Defines relevant terms. Of particular note: 

(1) Working in a State for a ‘‘Day’’ means that the employee 

performs more of the employee’s employment duties within 

such State than in any other State during that day. However, if the employee worked only in the resident and in 

one nonresident State during that day, it is counted as a 

nonresident day regardless of the time spent there. Transit 

time is excluded from these calculations. 

(2) ‘‘Employee’’ is defined according to State law consistent 

with State sovereignty principles. The term does not include a professional athlete, entertainer, or certain public 

figures. 

(6) ‘‘Employer’’ is defined by State law unless the State provides no definition, in which case Federal law controls. 

Again, this is consistent with State sovereignty principles. 

(8) ‘‘Time and Attendance System’’ means a system that requires employees to record the locations where they work 

every day and that the employer uses that system to allocate employees’ wages for tax purposes. 

(9) ‘‘Wages or Other Remuneration’’ is left to the States to define. 

Section 3. Effective Date; Applicability. 

The Act is effective on January 1 of the second year after the 

date of enactment and does not apply to any tax obligation accrued 

before then. 

Dissenting Views 

Most would agree that a uniform framework specifying when an 

employer must withhold state income tax would help ensure simplicity and be more administrable than the current varied state 

standards.1 Although H.R. 2315, the ‘‘Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015,’’ is intended to achieve this 

result, the means by which it does so would lead to significant 

state revenue losses. Specifically, the bill’s 30-day threshold is simply too long and, as drafted, could facilitate manipulation. Our concerns are shared by a broad coalition of labor and tax organizations, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 

Industrial Organizations, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Communications Workers of America, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

12 

2Letter from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Amalgamated Transit Union, Communications Workers of America, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, 

International Union of Police Associations, National Education Association, Service Employees 

International Union, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (June 16, 2015) (on file with the H. of Representatives Comm. on 

the Judiciary, Democratic Staff); Federation of Tax Administrators Resolution 2015–2 (Federal 

Mobile Workforce Legislation) (June 18, 2015) (on file with the H. of Representatives Comm. 

on the Judiciary, Democratic Staff); Letter from Julie P. Magee, Chair of the Multistate Tax 

Comm’n, to Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, & Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (July 8, 2015) 

(on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff) [hereinafter ‘‘MTC Letter’’]. 3Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 52 (1920) (‘‘[J]ust as a State may impose general income taxes 

upon its own citizens and residents whose persons are subject to its control, it may, as a necessary consequence, levy a duty of like character, and not more onerous in its effect, upon incomes accruing to non-residents from their property or business within the State, or their occupations carried on therein.’’). 4See New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937); Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n, 

286 U.S. 276 (1932) (holding that the state has unrestricted power to tax citizens’ net income 

even if activities are carried on outside of the state). 5 Unofficial Tr. of Nexus Issues: Hearing on H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 

Simplification Act of 2015, H.R. 1643, the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2015, 

and H.R. 2584, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015: Before the Subcomm. on 

Reg. Reform, Com. and Antitrust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 

(2015)(written statement of Julie P. Magee, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue, at 5) [hereinafter the ‘‘2015 Hearing’’]. 6Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2011: Hearing on H.R. 1864 Before 

the Subcomm. on Courts, Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 

41 (2011) [hereinafter the ‘‘2011 Hearing’’]. The following nine states do not impose an individual income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 

Washington, and Wyoming. Although the District of Columbia may tax its residents, Federal 

law bars it from taxing the income of non-residents. Pub. L. No. 93–198 (1973). But see Mobile 

Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2013: Hearing on H.R. 1129 Before the 

Subcomm. on Reg. Reform, Com. and Antirust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th 

Cong. 33–39 (2014) (statement of Jeffrey A. Porter, Owner, Porter & Associates, CPAs, on behalf 

of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) (contending that not 41 but 43 states 

impose an income tax). 7 2015 Hearing (written statement of Doug Lindholm, President and Executive Director of the 

Council on State Taxation, at 2). 

the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the International Union of Police Associations, the National 

Education Association, the Service Employees International Union, 

the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, the Federation of Tax Administrators, and the Multistate Tax Commission.2

For these reasons and others set forth below, we must respectfully dissent. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

In an ever-increasing mobile U.S. workforce, employees often 

work in several states throughout the year. As a result, these employees may incur state income tax obligations in more than just 

their resident state and they are obligated to pay state income 

taxes to the state where income is earned or where the services 

giving rise to the income are performed.3 Although an employee’s 

resident state may tax all income regardless of where the income 

is earned,4 the resident state typically provides a credit for any income taxes paid to other states.5

A total of 41 states currently collect state income taxes 6 and 

each has established a threshold for when an earner must pay such 

taxes and when the employer must withhold.7 The thresholds generally fall into two categories at which employers must begin to 

withhold income for state tax purposes: a threshold based on the 

number of days that the employee earned income in the state and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

13 

8 2011 Hearing at 17 (written statement of Jeffrey A. Porter, speaking on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). 9State of New York—Department of Taxation and Finance, Income/Franchise Tax—District 

Office Audit Manual, Withholding Tax Field Audit Guidelines, at 24 (Sept. 17, 2004), available 

at http://www.bcnys.org/inside/tax/withholding.pdf. 

10Wis. Stat. § 71.64(6)(b) (2015). 11 2015 Hearing (written statement of Doug Lindholm, President and Executive Director of the 

Council on State Taxation, at 2). 12 2011 Hearing at 2 (statement of Ranking Member Coble); id., at 35 (written statement of 

Joseph R. Crosby, COO and Senior Policy Director for the Council on State Taxation). 13 H.R. 2315, § 2(a)(2). 14 H.R. 2315, § 2(d)(2) (high-income individuals are excluded from the definition of ‘‘employee’’ 

and therefore the 30-day threshold would not apply to them). 15 H.R. 2315, § 2(d)(1). 16 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 1864, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2011: Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 94 (Nov. 17, 2011) (statement of Representative Jerrold Nadler). 17 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, H.R. 2315: Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 

Simplification Act of 2015 (July 21, 2015). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is intended to 

curb the practice of imposing Federal mandates on state and local governments without adequate funding. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48 (1995). 

a threshold based on the amount of income earned in the state.8

For example, New York requires withholding after an individual 

has worked 14 days within the state.9 In contrast, Wisconsin requires withholding once the employee has earned at least $1,500 

within the state.10

As a result of these differing thresholds, both states and employees have burdensome compliance and paperwork requirements,11

which are particularly challenging for employees who must travel 

for work.12 Accordingly, a solution that would impose a national 

uniform standard is urged by those who have encountered such difficulties. 

H.R. 2315 seeks to address these differing standards by establishing a national uniform threshold. Specifically, it bars a state 

from imposing income taxes on a non-resident until the non-resident has worked more than 30 workdays within a calendar year 

within the state.13 The 30-day threshold would not apply, however, 

to certain high-income individuals (e.g., professional athletes, entertainers, and certain public figures), although they would still be 

subject to current state thresholds.14 The bill defines what constitutes a workday to ensure that no state double counts the workday of an employee.15

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 2315

I. H.R. 2315 WILL RESULT IN MAJOR TAX REVENUE LOSSES FOR

CERTAIN STATES

H.R. 2315’s 30-day threshold would allow a non-resident employee to work six entire business weeks (or more than ten percent 

of the year) in another state and avoid an obligation to pay any income taxes to that state.16 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

stated that ‘‘H.R. 2315 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ and result 

in major revenue losses of ‘‘between $50 million and $100 million 

per year’’ collectively.17 CBO estimates that ‘‘New York would probably lose the largest amount of revenue—between $50 million and 

$125 million per year, according to state and industry estimates— 

and Illinois, Massachusetts, and California would face smaller 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

14 

18 Id. The ranges of revenue losses for New York exceed the range of overall losses for the 

states collectively because ‘‘states tax income at different rates and on different tax bases, the 

changes in tax revenues nationwide would not net to zero.’’ Id. 19Letter from Jerry Boone, Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Finance, State 

of New York, to Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Representative Bob 

Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, & Representative John Conyers, 

Jr., Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary (July 8, 2015) (on file with the 

H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Democratic Staff). In his letter, Commissioner Boone details how 

his office calculated that figure: 

Our estimate is constructed through a simulation of actual New York State nonresident tax 

returns from tax year 2012. Nonresident wages, the base of the estimate, are grown to tax 

year 2017 using the most recent forecast from the New York State Division of the Budget. 

We also build in a behavioral assumption regarding the actions likely to be taken by some 

nonresidents to stay below the 30-day threshold. Finally, the estimate includes an offset for 

the reduction in the resident credit New York provides to its residents who work out-ofstate. 20 Id. 21 2015 Markup at 40. 22 H.R. 2315, § 2(c). 23MTC Letter. 

losses.’’ 18 The State of New York itself estimates that the bill will 

lead to a tax revenue loss of between $100 million and $125 million 

starting in 2017.19 Of note, this ‘‘revenue loss is greater than the 

revenue impact on all other states combined.’’ 20 Such shortfalls in 

tax revenues would force states to make up these losses by shifting 

the tax burden to resident taxpayers through increased property, 

income, and sales taxes, and perhaps by cutting governmental services. Unfortunately, an amendment offered by Representatives 

Jerrold Nadler (D–NY) and Hakeem Jeffries (D–NY) that would 

have shortened the threshold to a reasonable 14 days failed by a 

vote of 7 to 12.21

II. H.R. 2315 HINDERS ENFORCEMENT OF INCOME TAX COLLECTION

H.R. 2315 also could prohibit an employer from withholding an 

employee’s income taxes owed to a non-resident state. Section 2(c) 

of the bill provides that—for purposes of determining an employer’s 

obligation to withhold state income taxes for an employee—an employer may rely on the employee’s determination of the time the 

employee is expected to spend in another state during the year.22

Thus, if the employee does not inform his or her employer about 

expecting to spend more than 30 work days during the calendar 

year in another state, this provision effectively prevents the employer from withholding an employee’s state income taxes to a nonresident state. ‘‘This is true even if the employer is aware that the 

employee has been working in a state more than 30 days, as long 

as that state cannot prove that the employee committed fraud in 

making his annual determination and that the employer knew it.’’ 23

As a result, H.R. 2315 undermines enforcement of state income tax 

collection. 

CONCLUSION

Although real problems are presented for both states and employees as the result of disparate state employment tax withholding criteria, H.R. 2315 is not the solution. We cannot support 

legislation that will cause states to incur significant revenue losses, 

which the bill in its current form would do. Nevertheless, had the 

amendment to H.R. 2315, which would have shortened the threshold period to 14 days been accepted, we could have supported this 

revised version of the legislation because it would have lessened its 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS

15 

impact on state revenues while still providing the certainty proponents of the legislation seek. Absent a more reasonable threshold, we must oppose the bill as ordered reported by the Committee. 

MR. CONYERS, JR. 

MR. NADLER. 

MS. CHU. 

MR. JEFFRIES. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with HEARINGS