The Biden administration pleaded with the high court to not get involved.The court should take up the case. Outside groups who wanted to raise the issue noted that the issue will not be resolved. More employees are expected to telecommute even though the country's coronavirus restrictions have been loosening.According to court orders, Justices Samuel Alito & Clarence Thomas wanted the case to be heard. However, that was far less than the five required to hear New Hampshire in Massachusetts.DOJ intervention She informed the justices that New Hampshire had not made a convincing case that Massachusetts' tax policy violated its rights to control its own taxes and that it was up to the court to decide whether to referee differences between states.Prelogar noted that the Massachusetts policy was only temporary. The state has since brought it to an end. Experts also suggested that the court would be surprised to limit state taxing powers so quickly after expanding them in 2018. This was after a 2018 decision which allowed states to collect sales taxes online from retailers outside of their jurisdiction.Critics of the court's refusal to hear the case claim it was a missed chance to help employees who telecommute or travel frequently for work and are caught up in confusing state tax rules.Although the Court decided to punt today's case, telework is here and will continue to be a part of our lives, Joe Bishop-Henchman, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, stated that remote work taxation issues will not disappear. This is not the last case.Now: Sens. John Thune (R.S.D. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sherrod brown (D.Ohio), have worked for years on legislation to simplify these rules and tried unsuccessfully to include their measure in a coronavirus relief program last year.New York is home to Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer and is one of the most aggressive states when it comes to taxing residents out-of-state.New Jersey and Connecticut were among those states that supported New Hampshire's position. They argued, along with Hawaii, Iowa and Connecticut, that the case is serious and of national significance and that there is no other viable alternative.
