In this N.H. tax tussle, advantage Massachusetts

Call it “no taxation from a remote location.”

That’s the cry coming from New Hampshire over a Massachusetts policy that its governor apparently sees as reminiscent of an unfair tax levied against American Colonists by the English King George III.

Back then, “no taxation without representation” served as a rallying slogan leading up to the American Revolution, in protest of what many Colonists believed were unconstitutional taxes imposed by the British on a population not represented in its governing body, Parliament.

Today, the Granite State believes it’s the aggrieved party.

That’s why its attorney general on Monday asked the U. S. Supreme Court to block Massachusetts from collecting income taxes from roughly 80,000 New Hampshire residents employed by Massachusetts companies who have been working from home during the coronavirus pandemic.

“Massachusetts cannot balance its budget on the backs of our citizens, punish our workers for making the decision to work from home and keep themselves and their families and those around them safe,” an indignant Gov. Chris Sununu said at a news conference.

Under a temporary rule enacted by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, residents of other states who were working in Massachusetts before the pandemic remain subject to Massachusetts’ 5.05% income tax while they work from home.

Now, for workers in some neighboring states, that’s a tolerable edict.

New York’s income tax rates range from 4% to 8.82%, three of Vermont’s income-tax rates exceed Massachusetts’, Connecticut’s income tax ranges from 3% to 6.99%, while Rhode Island’s tax grows in increments from 3.75% to 5.99%.

But in income tax-free New Hampshire, those working south of the border in normal times probably banked on receiving a 5.05% boost in pay for the duration of this crisis.

Despite its time-sensitive application — this order will expire either on Dec. 31 or 90 days after the coronavirus state of emergency in Massachusetts ends — New Hampshire officials argue it represents a permanent shift in underlying policy and amounts to an “aggressive attempt to impose Massachusetts income tax” beyond its borders.

We suggest Gov. Charlie Baker prepare for another Boston Tea Party, or perhaps the commandeering of Old Ironsides.

Histrionics and hyperbole aside, New Hampshire’s case contains little or no merit.

Attorney General Gordon MacDonald argues that the lack of a New Hampshire income tax reflects the state’s identity, and has helped boost per-capita income, decrease unemployment and motivate businesses and individuals to move to the state.

Well, the prospect of abundant, high-paying jobs apparently has motivated thousands of New Hampshire residents to work in Massachusetts.

By reaching across its borders into the wallets of New Hampshire residents, “Massachusetts takes direct aim at New Hampshire’s policy choices as a sovereign, and the New Hampshire Advantage that has resulted from those choices,” wrote AG MacDonald.

The complaint asks SCOTUS to declare the Mass. DOR directive unconstitutional, block its implementation and order Massachusetts to refund the taxes.

MacDonald said he expects the high court to decide by the end of the year whether to hear the case.

If Granite Staters want the full New Hampshire tax advantage, get a job in your home state.

The commonwealth shouldn’t be expected to waive needed revenue from out-of-staters employed by Massachusetts companies.

Sorry, New Hampshire, this is one tax advantage you haven’t earned.