[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9483-9488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      MOBILE WORKFORCE STATE INCOME TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2017

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 1393) to limit the authority of States to tax certain 
income of employees for employment duties performed in other States.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1393


       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mobile Workforce State 
     Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON STATE WITHHOLDING AND TAXATION OF 
                   EMPLOYEE INCOME.

       (a) In General.--No part of the wages or other remuneration 
     earned by an employee who performs employment duties in more 
     than one State shall be subject to income tax in any State 
     other than--

[[Page 9484]]

       (1) the State of the employee's residence; and
       (2) the State within which the employee is present and 
     performing employment duties for more than 30 days during the 
     calendar year in which the wages or other remuneration is 
     earned.
       (b) Wages or Other Remuneration.--Wages or other 
     remuneration earned in any calendar year shall not be subject 
     to State income tax withholding and reporting requirements 
     unless the employee is subject to income tax in such State 
     under subsection (a). Income tax withholding and reporting 
     requirements under subsection (a)(2) shall apply to wages or 
     other remuneration earned as of the commencement date of 
     employment duties in the State during the calendar year.
       (c) Operating Rules.--For purposes of determining penalties 
     related to an employer's State income tax withholding and 
     reporting requirements--
       (1) an employer may rely on an employee's annual 
     determination of the time expected to be spent by such 
     employee in the States in which the employee will perform 
     duties absent--
       (A) the employer's actual knowledge of fraud by the 
     employee in making the determination; or
       (B) collusion between the employer and the employee to 
     evade tax;
       (2) except as provided in paragraph (3), if records are 
     maintained by an employer in the regular course of business 
     that record the location of an employee, such records shall 
     not preclude an employer's ability to rely on an employee's 
     determination under paragraph (1); and
       (3) notwithstanding paragraph (2), if an employer, at its 
     sole discretion, maintains a time and attendance system that 
     tracks where the employee performs duties on a daily basis, 
     data from the time and attendance system shall be used 
     instead of the employee's determination under paragraph (1).
       (d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     Act:
       (1) Day.--
       (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an employee is 
     considered present and performing employment duties within a 
     State for a day if the employee performs more of the 
     employee's employment duties within such State than in any 
     other State during a day.
       (B) If an employee performs employment duties in a resident 
     State and in only one nonresident State during one day, such 
     employee shall be considered to have performed more of the 
     employee's employment duties in the nonresident State than in 
     the resident State for such day.
       (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the portion of the day 
     during which the employee is in transit shall not be 
     considered in determining the location of an employee's 
     performance of employment duties.
       (2) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the same meaning 
     given to it by the State in which the employment duties are 
     performed, except that the term ``employee'' shall not 
     include a professional athlete, professional entertainer, 
     qualified production employee, or certain public figures.
       (3) Professional athlete.--The term ``professional 
     athlete'' means a person who performs services in a 
     professional athletic event, provided that the wages or other 
     remuneration are paid to such person for performing services 
     in his or her capacity as a professional athlete.
       (4) Professional entertainer.--The term ``professional 
     entertainer'' means a person of prominence who performs 
     services in the professional performing arts for wages or 
     other remuneration on a per-event basis, provided that the 
     wages or other remuneration are paid to such person for 
     performing services in his or her capacity as a professional 
     entertainer.
       (5) Qualified production employee.--The term ``qualified 
     production employee'' means a person who performs production 
     services of any nature directly in connection with a State 
     qualified, certified or approved film, television or other 
     commercial video production for wages or other remuneration, 
     provided that the wages or other remuneration paid to such 
     person are qualified production costs or expenditures under 
     such State's qualified, certified or approved film incentive 
     program, and that such wages or other remuneration must be 
     subject to withholding under such film incentive program as a 
     condition to treating such wages or other remuneration as a 
     qualified production cost or expenditure.
       (6) Certain public figures.--The term ``certain public 
     figures'' means persons of prominence who perform services 
     for wages or other remuneration on a per-event basis, 
     provided that the wages or other remuneration are paid to 
     such person for services provided at a discrete event, in the 
     nature of a speech, public appearance, or similar event.
       (7) Employer.--The term ``employer'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 3401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 3401(d)), unless such term is defined by the 
     State in which the employee's employment duties are 
     performed, in which case the State's definition shall 
     prevail.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the several 
     States.
       (9) Time and attendance system.--The term ``time and 
     attendance system'' means a system in which--
       (A) the employee is required on a contemporaneous basis to 
     record his work location for every day worked outside of the 
     State in which the employee's employment duties are primarily 
     performed; and
       (B) the system is designed to allow the employer to 
     allocate the employee's wages for income tax purposes among 
     all States in which the employee performs employment duties 
     for such employer.
       (10) Wages or other remuneration.--The term ``wages or 
     other remuneration'' may be limited by the State in which the 
     employment duties are performed.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on January 
     1 of the second calendar year that begins after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Applicability.--This Act shall not apply to any tax 
     obligation that accrues before the effective date of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1393, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification 
Act provides a clear, uniform framework for when States may tax 
nonresident employees who travel to the taxing State to perform work. 
In particular, this bill prevents States from imposing income tax 
compliance burdens on nonresidents who work in a foreign State for 30 
days or fewer in a year.
  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. Some States tax income earned within their 
borders by nonresidents even if the employee only works in the State 
for just 1 day.
  These complicated rules impact everyone who travels for work and many 
industries. As just one example, the Judiciary Committee heard 
testimony in 2015 that the patchwork of State laws resulted in a 
manufacturing company issuing 50 W-2s to a single employee for a single 
year. The company executive also noted, regarding the compliance 
burden, that ``many of our affected employees make less than $50,000 
per year and have limited resources to seek professional advice.''
  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. Credits also do not relieve workers of substantial 
paperwork burdens.
  There are substantial burdens on employers as well. The committee 
heard testimony in 2014 that businesses, including small businesses, 
that operate interstate are subject to significant regulatory burdens 
with regard to compliance with nonresident State income tax withholding 
laws. These burdens distract from productive activity and job creation.
  Nevertheless, some object that the States will lose revenue if the 
bill is enacted. However, an analysis from Ernst & Young found that the 
bill's revenue impact is minimal. There is little motive for fraud and 
gaming because the amount of money at issue, taxes on less than 30 
days' wages, is minimal.
  Also, the income tax generally has to be paid; the question is merely 
to whom. Nor does this bill violate federalism principles. On the 
contrary, it is an exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority in 
precisely the situation for which it was intended.
  The Supreme Court has explained that the Commerce Clause was informed 
by structural concerns about the effects of State regulation on the

[[Page 9485]]

national economy. Under the Articles of Confederation, State taxes and 
duties hindered and suppressed interstate commerce. The Framers 
intended the Commerce Clause as a cure for these structural ills. This 
bill fits squarely within this authority by bringing uniformity to 
cases of de minimis presence by interstate workers in order to reduce 
compliance costs.
  Last year's version of the bill passed the House on suspension by 
voice vote. This year's version is nearly identical, with two changes:
  The professional entertainer exemption is narrowed from ``a person 
who performs services'' to ``a person of prominence who performs 
services'' in order to ensure that other entertainers retain the 
benefit of the bill's protections.
  Second, the list of exclusions is expanded to cover film production 
employees if associated tax credits for instate productions are 
contingent on withholding film production wages earned in the State. 
This avoids disruption in such arrangements.
  I commend the bill's lead sponsors, Representatives Bishop and 
Johnson, and thank all of the bill's cosponsors.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the bill's passage, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1393. This bill 
represents a major assault on the sovereignty of the States, and it 
does particular damage to my home State of New York, depriving it of 
more than $100 million a year of its own tax revenue, which hardly fits 
the de minimis description by the gentleman from Virginia.
  The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act would 
prohibit States from collecting income tax from an individual unless 
the person works more than 30 days in that State in a calendar year.
  Simplifying and harmonizing the rules on tax collection across the 
country is a worthy goal, and I support efforts by the States and the 
Multistate Tax Commission to resolve the issue. New York has been an 
active participant in these negotiations and wants to reach a fair 
solution. But imposing a solution on States, and one that would cause a 
large financial burden on particular States, is clearly not the answer.
  The power to tax is a key index of sovereignty; yet this legislation 
would prohibit States from taxing activity solely within their own 
borders except as prescribed in the bill. I think that is 
constitutionally dubious. Although I take a broad view generally of the 
Commerce Clause, I doubt it extends to authorizing Federal regulation 
of a State's ability to tax a person doing business within that State's 
own borders.
  This bill is also deeply troubling as a matter of policy. Under this 
legislation, if you work in a State of which you are not a resident for 
fewer than 30 days, your income will not be subject to tax by that 
State. That amounts to 6 weeks of 5-day workweeks. While a de minimis 
exception may make some sense, I hardly think that 6 weeks is de 
minimis.
  Ultimately, the threshold for taxation is for each State to decide 
for itself. If I were still a member of the New York Legislature, I 
would consider the political and economic merits of taxing out-of-State 
business activity, and I would vote based on what I thought was best 
for my State. But by what right does Congress step in to tell New York 
that it must forego more than $100 million a year based on economic 
activity that occurs entirely within its borders?
  In some States, the 30-day threshold may not have a great fiscal 
impact. But New York State, for example, is home to New York City, the 
Nation's center of commerce, which also sits right across the river 
from New Jersey and a very short distance from Connecticut. This makes 
New York a major destination for out-of-State business travelers and 
makes it, by far, the hardest hit State under this bill. According to 
the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, losses could be 
up to $120 million a year for New York.

                              {time}  1515

  This enormous financial loss would come at a time that the President 
and the Republican Congress are proposing to shift significant 
responsibilities to the States, while simultaneously slashing Federal 
assistance. If we further deprive New York of $120 million each year, 
and limit its ability to tax activity occurring within its own borders, 
vital services like education, law enforcement, and healthcare could 
all be on the chopping block.
  During consideration of H.R. 1393 in the Judiciary Committee, I 
offered two amendments that would have mitigated its impact. The first 
would have reduced the bill's 30-day threshold to a far more reasonable 
14 days, which is still almost 3 weeks of work without being subject to 
taxation. The other would have added highly paid individuals to the 
bill's list of exemptions, which would help avoid loopholes that could 
allow wealthy people to escape millions of dollars of taxation.
  Had my amendments been accepted, the expected impact on New York 
would have been reduced by as much as $85 million a year. While still 
causing a significant drain on resources, these amendments would have 
gone a long way to making the bill fairer, while still achieving its 
underlying goals. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated, and, 
therefore, I must oppose the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from New York.
  I would like to point out that those revenues that might flow to New 
York because of their onerous system of imposing taxation for as little 
as one day's work in New York redounds to the benefit of the other 49 
States, who would then receive that tax benefit, as it properly should.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), the lead sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on my bipartisan, 
bicameral bill, H.R. 1393, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 
Simplification Act.
  Madam Speaker, the 10th Amendment gives States the freedom to set 
their own public policy. It is important, however, that they do so in a 
way that does not infringe upon the Commerce Clause of the United 
States Constitution, which gives jurisdiction over interstate commerce 
to Congress.
  With our constitutional mandate in mind, at a time of rapid expansion 
in our workforce and an increasingly global and mobile economy, it is 
incumbent upon Congress to simplify and ease the complex burden that is 
imposed on interstate commerce activity.
  In my 25 years as an attorney and a small-business owner, I am 
uniquely aware of the task of complying with the complexities of the 
various State income taxes, especially when you travel to another State 
for business.
  The burden to comply is a particular burden to small businesses, as 
well as their employees, because they simply do not have the resources 
and cannot absorb the compliance costs. As a result, the current tax 
framework puts smaller businesses, the very backbone of our economy, at 
a substantial competitive disadvantage relative to larger businesses.
  And complex reporting requirements punish the employees, too. The 
time and overall expenses that result from filing all of this paperwork 
is overwhelming, and, in many cases, financially devastating. It is all 
because they had the audacity to work outside of their home State.
  Rather than driving profits back into their businesses and community 
by expanding payrolls and reducing the price of consumer goods, 
businesses are being forced to spend their hard-earned, scarce 
resources on complying with a menagerie of convoluted and ridiculous 
State income tax laws.
  While crafting this legislation in committee, we heard a lot of 
anecdotal information and a lot of personal testimonials. In fact, we 
heard firsthand testimony from an employee, indicating that his 
employer had to file

[[Page 9486]]

over 10,000 W-2s on behalf of their numerous employees, primarily 
because they had crossed State lines for work. He went on to tell us 
one of his coworkers had to file 50 W-2s--that is 50 W-2s--just for 
himself.
  That didn't make sense to us, and it certainly doesn't make sense to 
most Americans. Imagine an individual, making less than $50,000 a year, 
having to file 10, 20, or even 50 W-2s. It is ridiculous, and it is 
unacceptable.
  Madam Speaker, I am an ardent defender of the United States 
Constitution--in particular, the 10th Amendment--which delegates 
authority not granted to the Federal Government, to the States.
  That said, the Constitution gives plenary jurisdiction to Congress 
relative to the regulation of interstate commerce, under Article I, 
section 8. It is, therefore, as in this case, the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress to identify and respond to an increasingly 
mobile and global economy and relieve it of unnecessary burdensome 
compliance requirements resulting from a patchwork of unique State 
income tax laws.
  And that is why many groups that advocate on behalf of States, such 
as the American Legislative Exchange Council, agree with this 
legislation, because H.R. 1393 is the type of simple and streamlined 
interstate commerce regulation Congress should be enacting. In fact, 
there are more than 300 outside organizations that have encouraged 
support of this bill.
  With the help of my colleague, Hank Johnson, on the other side of the 
aisle, our Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act is a 
carefully crafted, bipartisan, and bicameral measure that streamlines 
State income tax laws across the Nation.
  It creates a uniform threshold, giving nonresidents 30 days to work 
in another State without being liable for that State's income tax. This 
simple and straightforward language ensures employees will have a clear 
understanding of their tax liability, and it gives employers a clear 
and consistent rule so that they can plan and accurately predict their 
tax liability, knowing the same rule applies for all States with an 
income tax.
  It also means much less paperwork and reduced compliance costs for 
both States and businesses and their employees.
  The goal of H.R. 1393 is to protect our mobile workers, and that 
includes traveling emergency workers and first responders; trade union 
workers; nonprofit staff; teachers; Federal, State, and local 
government employees; and much more. Any organization that has 
employees who cross State lines for temporary periods will benefit from 
this law.
  I would also note that great care was taken with this bill to 
diminish the impact on State revenues. You heard testimony earlier 
relative to its impact on State governments. In fact, a 2015 study by 
Ernst & Young found that H.R. 1393 would actually raise State income 
tax revenues, while other States would only see a de minimis change.
  With that said, I would like to take this time to thank all of the 
members of the Mobile Workforce Coalition who support our bill; 
Chairman Goodlatte and his world class staff for all of their work; my 
57 colleagues who cosponsored this in the House; as well as Senator 
Thune, Senator Brown, and nearly half of the United States Senate who 
have cosponsored our companion bill.
  Madam Speaker, as Congress continues to work on comprehensive tax 
reform to jump start our economy and to provide relief for American 
families and businesses, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 
Simplification Act is a great start to streamline the Tax Code and roll 
back unnecessary and costly administrative burdens.
  With so much red tape interwoven in today's Tax Code, this bill is a 
commonsense way to cut through the clutter and simplify part of the 
filing process moving forward. Together, we can make our workforce the 
priority and help our small businesses grow and prosper.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 
1393.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Nadler for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1393, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 
Simplification Act of 2017, is an important, bipartisan bill that will 
help workers and small businesses across the country--large businesses, 
also.
  As the proud sponsor of this legislation in both the 110th and 111th 
Congresses, I am very familiar with how hard legislators on both sides 
of the aisle have worked since then to bring this bill to this point. I 
want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Bob 
Goodlatte, for ushering this bill to the House to this point, and I ask 
my colleagues to please vote in favor of this legislation.
  H.R. 1393 would provide for a uniform and easily administrable law 
that will simplify the patchwork of existing inconsistent and confusing 
State rules. It would also reduce administrative costs to the States 
and lessen compliance burdens on consumers.
  Take my home State of Georgia as an example. If an Atlanta-based 
employee of a St. Louis company travels to headquarters on a business 
trip once a year, that employee would be subject to Missouri tax, even 
if the annual visit only lasts for 1 day. However, if that employee 
travels to Maine, her trip would only be subject to tax if her trip 
lasts for 10 days. If she travels to New Mexico on business, she would 
only be subject to tax if she was in the State for 15 days.
  Acuity Brands is a leading Georgia-based lighting manufacturer that 
employs over 1,000 associates and has over 3,200 associates nationwide 
who travel extensively across the country for training, conferences, 
and other business.
  In a letter in support of a prior, nearly identical version of this 
bill, Richard Reece, Acuity's executive vice president, writes that 
current State laws are numerous, varied, and often changing, requiring 
that the company expend significant resources merely interpreting and 
satisfying States' requirements. He concludes that ``unified, clear 
rules and definitions for nonresident reporting and withholding 
obligations would undoubtedly improve compliance rates, and it would 
strike the correct balance between State sovereignty and ensuring that 
America's modern mobile workforce is not unduly encumbered.''
  We should heed the concerns of Acuity, and numerous other businesses 
across the country, by enacting H.R. 1393 into law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. With over 57 cosponsors during this Congress, 
it is clear that the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification 
Act of 2017 is an idea whose time has come.
  I thank my colleagues for their work on this bill and, in particular, 
Congressman Bishop, for his leadership on this bill in the 115th 
Congress. He has carried the torch for our esteemed former colleague, 
the late Howard Coble, who passed this bill out of the House in the 
112th Congress.
  I also thank our staffs, who have worked tirelessly to build support 
for this legislation along bipartisan lines.
  This bill is a testament to the good that can come from working 
across the aisle on bipartisan tax fairness reforms. I am optimistic 
that the passage of H.R. 1393 augurs well for the passage of other e-
fairness legislation, which is critical to countless small businesses 
across the country, during this Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to bring 
this bill up for a vote soon. This country's employees and businesses 
deserve quick action.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am the only speaker remaining and

[[Page 9487]]

prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to quote from a letter from the president of the Federation of 
Tax Administrators and commissioner of the Oklahoma Tax Commission 
regarding this bill. She writes:

       This bill breaches the core of the relationship between the 
     Federal Government and State governments, a relationship that 
     is fundamentally important to the voters of Virginia and of 
     Michigan. It is a clear example of the Federal Government 
     crossing a line that is seldom breached and, in this 
     instance, should not be. The attached resolution from the 
     State tax agencies, all of them, offers in detail to explain 
     the State's positions against the mobile workforce.

                              {time}  1530

  Here are the three most compelling facts:

       One, States have in place a combination of laws, rules, and 
     compliance standards that effectively eliminate an unfair 
     outcome when it comes to recordkeeping and taxation of wages 
     earned in a State by a nonresident;
       Two, these approaches, which include model legislation 
     developed by the Multistate Tax Commission, take into account 
     information that is available to employers and de minimis 
     activities; and
       Three, H.R. 1393 goes beyond what is necessary to ensure 
     fair outcomes and a reasonable reporting burden, in 
     particular, because the bill takes away the states' rights to 
     require proper wage reporting and withholding even when the 
     employer already has the information to easily do so. It 
     opens up opportunities for tax avoidance.

  In closing, let me note that this legislation would not just harm New 
York and not just to a de minimis amount--$100 million to $120 million 
is hardly de minimis--but it would also have a similar effect on other 
States. That is why this bill is opposed by a broad coalition of labor 
and tax organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, the 
International Union of Police Associations, Federation of Tax 
Administrators, Multistate Tax Commission, and many others.
  Whether or not your State is hurt financially by this bill, however, 
all Members should be concerned by legislation that so brazenly strips 
from a State one of the fundamental hallmarks of sovereignty: the 
ability to tax economic activity that occurs entirely within its own 
borders. If we can target New York and other States with this bill, 
what is to say we won't come after your State next.
  I must also add that this bill is one in a series of bills that we 
have seen over the last few years that chip away at the revenue-raising 
and taxing ability of the States. Especially as the current majority 
and the current President seek to shift more responsibilities to the 
States and away from the Federal Government, we should not be depriving 
the States of their ability to raise revenues as they see fit within 
their own sovereignty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. It has 57 cosponsors from 
both sides of the aisle. This bill will minimize compliance burdens on 
both workers and employers so they can get back to being productive, 
creating and performing jobs. We have received letters of support from 
hundreds of entities across the employment spectrum.
  But this bill is not just about business; it is about individuals. 
One businessman told the Judiciary Committee that the compliance 
burdens from the patchwork of State laws falls on his employees, who 
make less than $50,000 per year and have limited resources to seek 
professional advice.
  It has been questioned whether there will be revenue lost to the 
States. Analysis shows the impact is minimal, affecting mainly the 
allocation of revenues, not the overall size of the tax revenue pot.
  Similarly, concerns about tax evasion are unfounded. 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 30 days' wages, is 
minimal. More importantly, except in nine States, the employee will 
have to pay the tax, in any event, to the employee's home State, so the 
only savings would be from minor rate differentials between the two 
jurisdictions.
  This legislation is a great example of Congress working in a 
bipartisan way to relieve burdens on hardworking Americans.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) and the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for their bipartisan work on this 
legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to support the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a common sense 
bill, H.R. 1393 which would set a national standard of 30 days for 
states to subject non-residents to income tax requirements within that 
state.
  Under current law, many of the 41 states with a broad based personal 
income tax rate subject out of state residents to income tax in that 
state on the first day they ``work'' in the state.
  This patchwork of state laws have created a confusing and unworkable 
nationwide system where individuals who travel to another state for a 
conference or meeting can find themselves subject to income tax 
requirements in a state where they only spent a few days.
  In fact, these overburdensome requirements can create a scenario in 
which a company of 7,000 employees who travel for domestic business may 
have to file 10,500 W-2's over the course of a given year. This burden 
can be even worse for a small business.
  One small business, which operates several customer service centers 
throughout the United States and has 600 employees working in 46 
states, faces a significant burden trying to comply. Most of these 600 
employees work out of one of the customer service centers, but 12 
employees travel out of state to do a job occasionally. The manager of 
this company has to spend 3 plus hours every week figuring out the tax 
reporting requirements for these employees, even though most of them 
only pay $30 to $100 a year into these different taxing authorities.
  Is this really a good use of the time of a small business? Wouldn't 
we rather have these individuals working to create jobs and grow our 
economy then wasting time complying with the burdensome reporting 
requirements for 42 different taxing authorities?
  H.R. 1393 is a common sense solution to this problem. 30 days is a 
fair baseline standard that can be applied nationwide. It allows U.S. 
workers to travel and work around the country for a reasonable amount 
of time without subjecting them to reporting requirements for taxation 
in all of the jurisdictions in which they travel. If they stay longer 
than 30 days in any particular state then the state is free to tax them 
according to their own state laws.
  With this new standard, American business will know what the rules of 
the road are across the country and they can plan their business 
accordingly.
  I thank the Chairman for moving this important bill through the 
committee, and urge your support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1393, 
the ``Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017.''
  I agree with the bill's sponsors that a uniform framework specifying 
when an employer must withhold state income tax could help ensure 
simplicity and be more administrable than the current varied state 
standards. However the means by which H.R. 1393 achieves this result 
would lead to significant state revenue losses and could actually 
encourage income tax avoidance.
  To begin with, rather than promoting uniformity, H.R. 1393 would have 
a significant adverse impact on income tax revenues for certain states.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, for example, New York 
could lose between $55 million and $120 million annually if this 
measure was signed into law.
  Other states that would be adversely impacted include Illinois, 
Massachusetts, and California.
  And, as a result of the lost revenues from non-resident taxpayers, 
these states could be forced to make up their losses by shifting the 
tax burden to resident taxpayers or levying new taxes.
  And states may even have to cut governmental services, such as 
funding for education and critical infrastructure improvements.
  Another problem with H.R. 1393 is that it essentially provides a 
roadmap for state income tax liability avoidance.
  By allowing an employer to rely on the employee's determination of 
the time he or she is

[[Page 9488]]

expected to spend working in another state during the year, the bill 
prevents the employer from withholding an employee's state income taxes 
to a non-resident state.
  This would be the result 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.
  Rather than proceeding with this flawed bill, the House should be 
considering a fair and uniform framework to allow states to collect 
taxes owed on remote sales.
  By staying silent since the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision, 
Congress has failed to ensure that states have the authority to collect 
the sales and use tax on Internet purchases.
  Placing brick and mortar businesses at a competitive disadvantage 
hurts main street Americans and means fewer local jobs and fewer 
opportunities.
  Lost tax revenues mean that state and local governments will have 
fewer resources to provide their residents essential services, such as 
education and police and fire protection.
  We owe it to our local communities, our local retailers, and state 
and local governments to act this Congress.
  I am disappointed that rather than moving the bipartisan eFairness 
legislation that our communities need, we are considering H.R. 1393 
instead.
  Accordingly, I oppose H.R. 1393.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1393.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________