COVID-19 Emergency

Without notice or fanfare, the New York Department of Taxation updated guidance on its website to address the application of its “convenience of the employer” rule to COVID-19 telecommuters.  The question of whether New York would consider employees who are working remotely due to the pandemic as doing so for “convenience” or “necessity,” has been vexing employers and employees since April.  New York’s latest update, which is disappointing but not surprising, has come down on the side of convenience.  As a result, an employee whose principal office is in New York State but who is working outside of the state during the pandemic will generally remain subject to New York State income tax, and the employer should generally continue to withhold New York State tax from the employee’s compensation.
Continue Reading Bad News for New York Nonresident Telecommuters: New York Issues COVID-19 Telecommuting Guidance

On Monday, October 19, the State of New Hampshire filed a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court of the United States asserting that its southern neighbor, Massachusetts, is violating its state sovereignty.  The suit attacks Massachusetts’s emergency regulations governing the taxation of income during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Massachusetts enacted a rule pursuant to which income earned by a nonresident of Massachusetts who worked in Massachusetts prior to the pandemic but who is working from home outside of the state remains Massachusetts-source income subject to Massachusetts income tax.  Accordingly, employers would be required to continue to withhold Massachusetts income tax on wages paid to those individuals even though the individuals are no longer working in Massachusetts.  Although the Massachusetts guidance is among the most sophisticated and detailed withholding guidance issued by the states during the pandemic, it is not alone in taking this approach.  Rhode Island issued regulations substantially similar to Massachusetts, and the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue has issued similar guidance in the form of FAQs posted on its website.  Other states have hinted at taking a similar approach, but the guidance is often vague and left open to interpretation.
Continue Reading New Hampshire Brings COVID-19 Tax Dispute to Supreme Court; Case Highlights Challenges Facing Employers and Employees

The IRS recently announced that it erroneously sent failure-to-deposit (“FTD”) penalty notices to certain employers that reduced their employment tax deposits on Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return) in anticipation of claiming sick and family leave credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) or the employee retention credit (“ERC”) under the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief and Economic Securities (“CARES”) Act.
Continue Reading IRS Warns Employers Claiming New Tax Credits of Erroneous Penalty Notices

Is an individual service provider an employee or an independent contractor?  As our employee benefits colleagues have noted previously in Covington’s Inside Compensation blog, the IRS test is complicated and just one of many for determining worker status under federal and state laws.  The American Workers, Families, and Employers Assistance Act (the “Bill”), one of a series of COVID-19 relief bills released by Senate Republicans, would address one aspect of worker classification during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Specifically, Section 214 of the Bill would provide that certain COVID-19 related benefits provided to an individual would not be taken into account in determining worker classification under the Code.  Section 214 further provides that such benefits (other than cash payments) would generally be considered qualified disaster relief payments under Code Section 139.
Continue Reading Senate Bill Would Ignore COVID-19 Assistance in Determining Worker Classification; Treat Certain Benefits as Qualified Disaster Relief Payments

The IRS recently released Notice 2020-46, providing favorable tax relief for “leave-based donation programs” designed to aid victims of COVID-19 pandemic.  Under these programs, employees may elect to forgo vacation, sick, or personal leave in exchange for payments that the employer makes to charitable organizations described under section 170(c).  Under this notice, payments employees elect to forgo do not constitute income or wages of the employees for federal income and employment tax purposes if the employer makes the payments, before January 1, 2021, to charitable organizations for the relief of victims of the pandemic.  The IRS will not assert that an opportunity to make this election results in employees’ constructive receipt of the payments.  Accordingly, an employer would not need to include the payments in Box 1, 3 (if applicable), or 5 of the Forms W-2 for employees electing to forgo their vacation, sick, or personal leave.Continue Reading IRS Provides Guidance on Leave Donation Programs in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic

On March 13, 2020, the President issued a proclamation declaring a national emergency regarding the global outbreak of the COVID-19 virus (the “COVID-19 Emergency”).  Subsequently, FEMA approved all states and the District of Columbia for major disaster declarations to provide federal emergency assistance.  The Federal Government and state governments have also taken unprecedented preventative and proactive measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 by instituting stay-at-home orders and significantly curtailing travel.  These restrictions have caused concerns regarding the application of the U.S. tax residency rules to nonresidents who are unable to leave the United States due to the state of emergency.  In response, Treasury and the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2020-20 to provide important relief under the substantial presence test for nonresidents unable to travel due to the COVID-19 Emergency.
Continue Reading IRS Provides Relief for Nonresidents Unable to Depart U.S. Due to Pandemic