Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
The bill restricts States from taxing wages of employees who work in multiple States so that only the employee’s resident State and any State where the employee performs duties more than 30 days in a calendar year may tax that income. Employers need not withhold for a State unless the employee meets that test; employers may rely on an employee’s annual estimate of time spent in each State unless the employer uses a contemporaneous time-and-attendance system.
Left emphasizes state revenue and progressive fairness concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy change that sets a definitive rule limiting State income tax reach for multi-State employees.
The bill restricts States from taxing wages of employees who work in multiple States so that only the employee’s resident State and any State where the employee performs duties more than 30 days in a calendar year may tax that income.
Employers need not withhold for a State unless the employee meets that test; employers may rely on an employee’s annual estimate of time spent in each State unless the employer uses a contemporaneous time-and-attendance system.
The bill excludes professional athletes, entertainers, certain production workers, and some public figures, and becomes effective January 1 of the second year after enactment.
Technically focused and administrable but high federalism sensitivity and fiscal effects lower probability absent strong bipartisan coalition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy change that sets a definitive rule limiting State income tax reach for multi-State employees. It includes detailed definitions and several operational rules (withholding applicability, employer reliance, time-and-attendance override) that make the statute reasonably actionable.
Left emphasizes state revenue and progressive fairness concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes state revenue and progressive fairness concerns
Likely skeptical.
Views the bill as a federal preemption that could shrink state tax bases and undercut progressive state revenue.
Appreciates compliance simplification but sees likely harms to public services and tax fairness, though exact impacts are uncertain.
Cautiously supportive of simplified rules but concerned about state budget impacts and gaming of employee estimates.
Would favor safeguards, a transition plan, and data collection to measure fiscal effects.
Generally favorable.
Sees the bill as reducing state overreach, lowering compliance costs, and encouraging worker mobility and economic efficiency.
Few ideological objections absent federal fiscal costs or hidden mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically focused and administrable but high federalism sensitivity and fiscal effects lower probability absent strong bipartisan coalition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes state revenue and progressive fairness concerns
Technically focused and administrable but high federalism sensitivity and fiscal effects lower probability absent strong bipartisan coaliti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy change that sets a definitive rule limiting State income tax reach for multi-State employees. It includes detailed definition…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.