About Us

A Tradition of Excellence

Education

We pride ourselves on being the best in the field. Our comprehensive educational programs cover foundational and advanced SALT concepts, ensuring our members stay ahead of industry trends. We offer the most extensive and diverse learning opportunities in state and local taxation through our schools, symposiums, Annual Conferences, and webinars.

Integrity

Upholding ethical standards is one of the most critical aspects of our mission at IPT. Our members adhere to a strict Code of Ethics. We advocate for our members and the SALT community. In addition, we promote the uniform and equitable administration of state and local taxation, prioritizing the best interests of our members, their businesses, and clients.

 

Community

IPT is more than just an organization; it's a thriving community of tax professionals. Here, you'll find a supportive environment to connect with peers, exchange ideas, and establish professional excellence within state and local taxation.

Become a Tax Pro

When you join IPT, you gain access to exceptional resources and become part of a network of like-minded professionals dedicated to your success. Our annual programs are crafted by SALT experts from diverse backgrounds, ensuring the content is relevant, practical, and tailored to your needs. Our professional designations help you achieve the highest levels of career success. Whether you're just starting your career or looking to enhance your expertise, IPT provides the education and training you need to excel in the ever-evolving world of state and local taxation. Join us and become a tax PRO with IPT!

As a member, you’ll benefit from live and online continuing education, employment opportunities, a monthly newsletter, industry research, and textbook resources to PRO your career. We also administer the following professional designations:

  • CMI (Certified Member of the Institute) for property tax, sales & use tax, and state income tax practitioners
  • CCIP (Certified Credits and Incentives Professional) for credits and incentives practitioners who represent business and industry
Not a Member?     Become a Sponsor
6,600+
members have already joined the IPT community to advance their careers in taxation.
1200+
corporations, firms, and taxpayers from business and industry sectors of all sizes, ranging from small firms to Fortune 1000 companies.
2,000+
professional designations awarded.
Overview

Who We Are

Since its inception in 1976, IPT has been the premier professional organization dedicated to the education, certification, and ethical guidance of professionals specializing in property, sales & use, state income, and value-added tax, as well as credits and incentives. We have been at the forefront of industry standards, offering world-class educational opportunities tailored to the evolving needs of our members.

At IPT, we are committed to promoting the uniform and equitable administration of state income, ad valorem, and sales & use taxes. We strive to minimize the costs associated with tax administration and compliance while upholding the highest standards of professionalism. Members are expected to adhere unwaveringly to our strict Code of Ethics. Join us in our commitment to excellence, integrity, and professionalism in state and local taxation. IPT is more than an organization; it's a community dedicated to the advancement of its members and the field as a whole.

 
 

Principles & Purposes

Explore the Institute’s guiding principles and learn about the educational value we provide across the disciplines of state and local taxation and business tax credits and incentives.

Bylaws

Gain insight into the bylaws that govern IPT and its members, ensuring transparency, accountability, and adherence to our organizational principles.

Code of Ethics

Discover our established Code of Ethics, a cornerstone of our organization, which outlines the ethical standards and conduct expected of all IPT members.

Leadership

Meet the IPT Board of Governors

Our Board of Governors has been doing the job right for more than forty years. Our dedicated leadership team of tax professionals is the best in the business and is committed to IPT and the organization’s ongoing success.

Member
Allan Wells, CMI
Allan Wells, CMI
President
Trisha C. Fortune, CMI, CPA
Trisha C. Fortune, CMI, CPA
First Vice President
Donald L. Lippert, Jr., CMI
Donald L. Lippert, Jr., CMI
Second Vice President

Leadership

Meet the IPT Staff

Our staff members conduct the organization's daily operations and ensure you have the resources to PRO your career in taxation.

Member
Chris G. Muntifering, CMI
Chris G. Muntifering, CMI
Executive Director
Brenda A. Pittler
Brenda A. Pittler
Deputy Executive Director
Emily Archer
Emily Archer
Deputy Executive Director
News and Media

Stay Pro-Informed

Your essential guide to staying informed about IPT’s upcoming events and important issues.

State Income Tax Article 

The Stars Might Lie, but the Numbers Never Do

Posted on May 16, 2024

Written by
Janette M. Lohman CMI, CCIP, CPA, Esq.  

 

Read Time: 5 minutes

Back in the Dark Ages (pre-Wynne17), when I used to teach state and local tax law at the Saint Louis University School of Law, my students and I grappled with the issue of whether a state should have the right to tax 100 percent of its residents’ income, given that the state has substantial nexus over the person, but not necessarily any nexus at all over 100 percent of that resident’s income if the person worked in another state.

That states are required by the Constitution to give to their residents a credit for income taxes paid to another state (up to the amount of the resident state’s income tax) on the same income seems to be an imperfect solution to the “double tax” issue, because the poor resident taxpayer is always stuck with paying an amount equal to the higher of the two taxes. If the resident state’s rates are lower, the taxpayer will pay the higher tax on the earned income, but the lower residence tax on unearned income (and vice versa).

Many of my students, however, liked better the concept of both types of income acquired by an individual being taxable by only one state — that is, the earned income would only be subject to state tax in the employment state, and the unearned income would only be subject to state tax in the residence state. This concept seems to resolve the nexus issue, because each state would only be able to tax income that was rightfully sitused within its jurisdiction, and each type of income would only be subject to the appropriate rate, and only once. In situations in which the residence state’s rate is higher, the taxpayer would pay the employment state’s lower rate on earned income, and in situations in which the residence state’s rate is lower, the taxpayer would pay the employment state’s higher rates on the earned income. Fair is fair, and my students thought that was as it should be. Besides, although taxpayers working and residing in different states would still have to file two returns, those returns would be less complicated without the difficult and often confusing “credits for taxes paid” calculations.

Diane Zilka’s situation, however, further exacerbates the complicated “credits for taxes paid” issue. Because Ms. Zilka resided in Philadelphia, she had to report 100 percent of her Wilmington, Delaware, earnings to two state and two local taxing jurisdictions. The combined Delaware SALT rate on wages was 6.25 percent, and the combined Pennsylvania SALT rate on wages was 6.99 percent. The Delaware rate was higher than the Pennsylvania rate, so Pennsylvania gave Ms. Zilka a full credit, with some left over. Unfortunately, however, the Wilmington rate was lower than the Philadelphia rate, and although Ms. Zilka got a full credit against Philadelphia tax for the Wilmington tax she paid, Philadelphia flatly refused to give Ms. Zilka credit for the excess Delaware taxes she paid against her Philadelphia tax. So, using $1,000 as her hypothetical income, (and assuming no unearned income) how much tax should she have paid, and how much did she actually pay?

  • If we adopted my student’s “nexus” computation in Ms. Zilka’s situation — EUREKA — we would have achieved total parity! That is, if she had only had to report income earned in Wilmington, Delaware, to Wilmington and Delaware, and assuming she only had earned income of $1,000, Ms. Zilka only would have been subject to a 5 percent Delaware state tax and a 1.25 percent Wilmington tax, or a total tax of 6.25 percent (which is, at least according to my students, as it should have been), regardless of the aggregation rules. Applying my students’ proposal, she would have paid a total of $62.50 to the jurisdictions in which the income had been earned, and Philadelphia and Pennsylvania would not have been involved at all.
  • Under the “acceptable” credit rules —and with that parity being all that Ms. Zilka is requesting — if we assume the state and city taxes are aggregated in both Pennsylvania and Delaware, Ms. Zilka still would have to pay the higher of the two taxes (or a total tax of 6.99 percent (5 percent to Delaware, 1.25 percent to Wilmington, and 0.74 percent to Philadelphia)). Philadelphia’s haul is a windfall, given that the income was earned in Wilmington. In the relief that she seeks, however, Ms. Zilka only wants to pay this higher of the two combined rates, for $69.90 total.
  • By not aggregating the state and local tax rates, however, Philadelphia gets a super windfall of a whopping 1.93 percent tax on income that was earned in Wilmington. Under the Pennsylvania court’s decision, Ms. Zilka had to pay $50 to Delaware, $12.50 to Wilmington, and a staggering $19.30 to Philadelphia, for a total of $89.20. (Gulp.)

Poor Ms. Zilka! Let us assume that her officemate is earning exactly the same salary as she does and is a Wilmington resident. The officemate will only pay $62.50 of combined SALT on the identical amount of income earned from the same employer in the same city and state. Ms. Zilka would have to move to Wilmington, Delaware (which, obviously, the Pennsylvania courts are encouraging her to do) to achieve SALT parity with her colleague. Ms. Zilka’s Philadelphia neighbor, whom (we assume) is earning exactly the same salary as she does, but who works in Philadelphia, will pay $69.90 of combined state and local tax on the identical amount of earned income. As a reminder, all Ms. Zilka wants is to NOT pay more combined SALT on the same amount of earned income as her Philadelphia neighbor pays. I am certain that my distinguished board member colleagues will continue to vet all the scholarly constitutional arguments defending why the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia taxes must be aggregated, how Philadelphia’s actions (and Pennsylvania’s acquiescence) are clearly in violation of Wynne, how similarly situated courts in other jurisdictions are upholding the aggregation mandated by Wynne and who, accordingly, would give Ms. Zilka the “half a loaf” she is requesting, thus causing a split among the circuits, and so forth . . . but isn’t what’s wrong with this situation quite obvious? Who are the Pennsylvania courts trying to kid? Where could Philadelphia get the legal authority to enact and enforce wage taxes but from the express municipal enabling laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? For the Pennsylvania courts to deny Pennsylvania’s responsibility for the Philadelphia wage tax is analogous to situations in which parents deny responsibility for the acts of their wayward minor children. Philadelphia was already benefiting from the “credit for taxes paid” structure by “legally” getting to tax a comparatively “little bit” of income earned somewhere else, but that was not enough. Philadelphia got greedy — and Pennsylvania let Philadelphia get away with it. Or will Philadelphia get away with it? My only other concern is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will put a stop to this injustice and affirmatively answer the aggregation issue (again) in favor of Ms. Zilka. Oh, please!


This article is republished with permission Tax Notes State.

 

Related News

Get Involved with IPT

The IPT community Is Ready for You

Join a diverse community of more than 6,600 members and achieve educational excellence, earn professional certification, and gain access to a world-class network. With IPT, you can advocate for equitable administration of state and local taxes, participate in volunteer opportunities to grow your leadership skills, and establish a stronger professional reputation by participating on our committees.

16 May 2024State Income Tax
The Stars Might Lie, but the Numbers Never Do
Back in the Dark Ages (pre-Wynne17), when I used to teach state and local tax law at the Saint Louis University School of Law,
IPT Member News

Scholarships for IPT's Advanced Property Tax Schools Now Available

The Application Deadline is June 15th

Announcing a New Scholarship Opportunity - Advanced Property Tax School Scholarships

IPT is pleased to announce a unique opportunity for its corporate members—a chance to secure one of two scholarships, each valued at up to $3,000, to attend one of the prestigious Advanced Property Tax Schools.

This exclusive offering includes one scholarship for the Real Property Tax School and another for the Personal Property Tax School. It is important to note that while the scholarships cover a substantial portion of the overall school expenses, some costs, such as registration fees, hotel accommodations, and associated travel, may not be fully covered.

This outstanding opportunity is exclusively available to corporate IPT members, and the application deadline is June 15, 2024.

These schools are essential components for individuals aspiring to attain the CMI-Property Tax Designation and candidates are encouraged to visit the Property Tax CMI Professional Designation page for more information.

Seize this chance to elevate your expertise and advance your career in property taxation! To be considered for a scholarship, applicants must supply:

  • Completed Application form.
  • A short statement describing their interest in ad valorem taxation.
  • A letter of recommendation provided by their supervisor with contact information for verification.

Scholarship Brochure
Scholarship Application

Related News

Get Involved with IPT

The IPT community Is Ready for You

Join a diverse community of more than 6,600 members and achieve educational excellence, earn professional certification, and gain access to a world-class network. With IPT, you can advocate for equitable administration of state and local taxes, participate in volunteer opportunities to grow your leadership skills, and establish a stronger professional reputation by participating on our committees.

19 Apr 2024IPT Member News
Scholarships for IPT's Advanced Property Tax Schools Now Available
IPT is offering scholarships to attend the Advanced Property Tax Schools.
Property Tax News

What is the Texas Circuit Breaker?

 

Posted on April 18, 2024

Written by Paul Pennington and Melinda Blackwell 

Read Time: 5 minutes

(Sec. 23.231. Circuit Breaker Limitation on Appraised Value of Real Property, Texas Property Tax Code)

Texans do not have an income tax, but they pay some of the highest property taxes in the country. This point is driven home by elected officials every legislative session. Each chance they get, they attempt to pass some sort of property tax relief to taxpayers, especially homeowners.

For example, in 2019 Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 2. This Bill, among other things, limited the growth of tax rates for counties and cities to a maximum of 3.5% without a popular referendum. It also included $5.1 billion to buy down the school tax rates. During the subsequent 2021 session the Legislature passed various changes to the Texas Property Code including an increase to the homestead exemption for school taxes from $25,000 to $40,000. Moving into the 2023 legislative session, the Texas Comptroller told lawmakers they would have a historic budget surplus of $33 billion. Upon hearing this news, calls for property tax cuts were thrust into the forefront of priorities for the Governor and those in the legislature.

As the session began, the House and Senate produced their own plans. Both agreed to continue and increase the buy down of school tax rates, but each had their additional, competing tax reduction plans. The House plan included a 5% cap on all real property along with the buy down of school tax rates moving forward. The Senate plan proposed to raise the school homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000 with that amount increasing to $110,000 for homeowners aged over sixty-five.

The Texas legislature wrestled with these two opposing plans through the regular session and two special sessions. In the end, both the House and Senate agreed to spend $5.3 billion to increase homestead exemptions, make changes to Appraisal Review Boards, the Appraisal Districts’ Boards of Directors, allocate $12.6 billion to buy down school tax rates (by 10.7 cents) and to create a pilot program called the “Circuit Breaker.”

The new Texas “circuit breaker” applies a 20% taxable value cap placed on all real property with a value of $5 million or less, with exception for homesteaded properties, special appraisal land (1-d-1 appraisal), and business personal property accounts. Unlike the circuit breaker legislation in other states, the Texas version is not based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay their taxes, rather it is applied universally (with the exceptions noted). The biggest misconception about the new law is that it is applied to individual properties or economic units. Contrary to this belief, the law is applied to individual parcels. Therefore, one economic unit could be comprised of several accounts, some that could fall under the umbrella of the Circuit Breaker, and other accounts that will not enjoy that protection.

According to the Texas Comptroller’s Office, if the “circuit breaker” had been applied in the 2023 tax year, it would have impacted 84.1% of all multifamily, 94.96% of all commercial property, and 87.90% of all industrial parcels.  Now that 2024 value notices are being issued, Texas taxpayers will have questions about the mechanics and application of the “circuit breaker”.

A summary of the pertinent provisions of the statute is set forth below:
  • For the first year in place (2024), the provision only applies to real property with an appraised value of not more than $5 million.
  • For those properties, their value is capped at an increase of 20 percent. The value limitation is recalculated each year by the Comptroller’s Office based on the Consumer Price Index.
  • It does not apply to a residence homestead or agricultural special use properties or personal property.
  • New improvements are taxable and are not included in the calculation of the cap. A new improvement does not include repairs to or ordinary maintenance of an existing structure or the grounds or another feature of the property.
  • The capped value of a property is removed when the property sells. If the property qualifies, the new owner must re-establish the capped value.

  • In essence, starting with the 2024 tax year, this provision limits the amount of annual value increase to the appraised value of real property which was valued in 2023 at $5 million or less (excepting homesteads and special use type properties like agricultural land, timberland, recreational, park and scenic land, etc.).  For example, if a property was valued at $4 million in 2023, then this value is used to determine the capped value for the 2024 tax year. If the property’s market value for 2024 is increased to $5 million, the “circuit breaker” comes into play. The capped value is $4.8 million (20% of $4 million) and it is that value which is used to calculate the amount of taxes due (rather than the $5 million market value). The value cap does not “run” with the property. Once a property sells, the new owner does not get to retain the capped value already in place on the property. Rather, the new owner will have to establish a new cap on the property as of January 1 of the year following the first year of ownership (assuming the value of the property still qualifies). After the 2024 tax year, the Comptroller determines the value of property that qualifies for the “circuit breaker” protection. The calculation requires consideration of the consumer price index. The Comptroller is required to publish the qualifying value. Currently, the “circuit breaker” provision is set to expire at the end of 2026. However, the Legislature meets again in 2025. At that time, the Legislature could extend the date the “Circuit Breaker” ends beyond 2026 or simply allow it to expire.

    Related News

    Get Involved with IPT

    The IPT community Is Ready for You

    Join a diverse community of more than 6,600 members and achieve educational excellence, earn professional certification, and gain access to a world-class network. With IPT, you can advocate for equitable administration of state and local taxes, participate in volunteer opportunities to grow your leadership skills, and establish a stronger professional reputation by participating on our committees.

    18 Apr 2024Property Tax
    What is the Texas Circuit Breaker?
    Texans don???t have an income tax, but they pay some of the highest property taxes in the country.
    IPT Member News

    IPT Sponsored Research 

    Big Box Valuation Methodology, Sale Transaction Analysis, and Market Participant Survey

    In 2017, the Institute for Professionals in Taxation ® commissioned the highly regarded appraisal firm Situs RERC to produce a sponsored research paper that would provide IPT members and the broader property tax and appraisal industries with an independent and objective review of generally accepted appraisal methods regarding the valuation of big box properties, as well as a comprehensive survey of these sale transactions across the nation. After more than two years of research and analysis, IPT’s Sponsored Research Report on the Valuation of Big Box Retail is now final and available for its members.

    Situs RERC meticulously researched nearly 1,000 sale transactions across the country and surveyed the appraisal arena on key concepts and valuation principles with the purpose to provide clarity regarding how the market actually interprets these transactions and determine an understanding of the sale price variances between leased and unleased properties. The complete analysis and final conclusions by Situs RERC are summarized in this report, which is available to IPT members by clicking the “View the Report” icon below.

    The IPT membership thanks Arthur R. Rosen, Esq., Chair of the IPT Sponsored Research Committee and IPT Second Vice President Mark S. Hutcheson, CMI, Esq., CRE, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Valuation of Freestanding Retail, and his committee for their countless hours and dedication to this important project. IPT also thanks Situs RERC, which accepted this project with great enthusiasm and scholarship.

    Read the Survey 

    Related News

    Get Involved with IPT

    The IPT community Is Ready for You

    Join a diverse community of more than 6,600 members and achieve educational excellence, earn professional certification, and gain access to a world-class network. With IPT, you can advocate for equitable administration of state and local taxes, participate in volunteer opportunities to grow your leadership skills, and establish a stronger professional reputation by participating on our committees.

    01 Apr 2024IPT Member News
    IPT Sponsored Research
    Read IPT's Sponsored Research on Big Box Methodology.
    State Income Tax News

    Update: Remote Workers and Local Taxes

     

    Posted on March 18, 2024

    Written by Mark Nachbar and Mary Bernard 

    Read Time: 10 minutes

    Because of the conditions imposed by the pandemic beginning in 2020, many states announced waivers to companies impacted by mandatory work-from-home pronouncements. Some states used emergency powers to expand taxation to encompass work-from-home employees in localities other than their normal work location. Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania have all addressed the issue recently.

    Ohio

    Schaad v. Adler1 was one of the five cases filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by the Buckeye Institute challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s emergency-based local income tax system that extended municipal taxing authority.2 The question in these cases was: Is it constitutional for the work of employees, who were forced to work from home by state orders, to be deemed to be working and taxed in a city other than where the work is performed?
    Prior to the pandemic, Josh Schaad of Blue Ash, Ohio, worked offsite for his employer and, in years past, had requested and received proportional refunds for his work performed outside the city limits of Cincinnati. When House Bill 197 was passed by the Legislature, all work performed elsewhere because of the health emergency was deemed to have been performed at the employee’s principal place of work for the purposes of levying income taxes. This change resulted in Mr. Schaad’s municipal income taxes increasing even though he had spent less time at his main office location in Cincinnati. 

    In 2021, the Ohio Legislature enacted House Bill 110 (HB 110), which sunset the temporary withholding provisions after December 31, 2021, and allowed employees working remotely to claim refunds of tax paid to the principal-place-of-work municipalities, including tax that was withheld by their employers, for days that the employee worked elsewhere during 2021.  HB 110, however, did not expressly apply the refund provisions for employee personal income tax to 2020.
    The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Schaad requesting a refund of 2020 taxes and challenging House Bill 197, Ohio’s emergency-based income tax system that deemed work he performed at his home to have been performed in the higher-taxed office location of Cincinnati for the purposes of taxation.

    After being rejected at trial court and appellate court, Schaad’s appeal was accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court on the following three propositions of law: 

    [1.] Section 29 of HB 197 is incompatible with Due Process and this Court’s Angell-Willacy line of decisions interpreting the Due Process requirements for municipal taxation. 
    [2.] The General Assembly cannot authorize municipalities to engage in extraterritorial taxation. 
    [3.] The General Assembly’s authority to pass “Emergency Laws” under Article II, Section 1d of the Ohio Constitution does not expand its substantive constitutional powers.

    In a split decision,3 the majority opinion rejected the taxpayer's primary argument that Section 29 of HB 197 violated the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, finding that the federal constitutional provisions govern interstate taxation and not intrastate taxation.  It was also noted that the United States Supreme Court has never applied federal constitutional limitations to purely intrastate taxation.  The majority also concluded that Section 29 of HB 197 did not violate the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. This provision limited the employees’ cities of residence from taxing the same income taxed by the primary workplace cities for employees working remotely. 

    It was stated in the dissent, however, that, “The General Assembly lacks the power to compel Cincinnati to collect taxes on income earned or received by a nonresident while working outside the city limits.” Another dissenting opinion stated that the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on whether Due Process protections apply when a city tax is extended beyond the city's boundaries. The second dissent also expressed the view that “this court has recognized that there is a role for federal due process to play in matters of municipal taxation.” 

    Missouri

    On another local tax front, beginning on September 30, 2024, proposed Missouri House Bill 1516 specifies that the City of St. Louis shall not continue to impose an earnings tax on any work or services performed or rendered through telecommuting or otherwise performed or rendered remotely, unless the location where such remote work or services are performed is located in the city. The bill creates a cause of action for a taxpayer who is denied a refund for taxes paid for work or services not performed or rendered in the city. This bill is similar to last year’s House Bill 589, but with more time to consider the bill this year, it might just pass the Senate.  Opponents of the bill note that the city earnings tax accounts for approximately one-third of the city’s general fund revenue and may be difficult to replace.

    Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania passed Act 32 that provided for withholding rates for earned income tax (EIT) purposes.  The withholding rate is determined by comparing the employee’s resident EIT rate to the employee’s work location EIT rate and withholding at the higher rate. Philadelphia, however, is not covered under Act 32 and applies a ”convenience of employer” rule. If employees of Philadelphia-based employers choose to work from home outside the city, their wages for work performed remotely are subject to Philadelphia wage tax.
    There are some circumstances where remote work will not be subject to Philadelphia wage tax:
    ⦁If the employee is merely assigned to the Philadelphia location but reports there less than twice per year and does not have a dedicated workspace or the option to work at the location;
    ⦁If the employee is working remotely as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act; or
    ⦁If the employee is unable to find adequate childcare. 

    Other State Remote Worker Developments

    It is possible that New York’s neighbors—Connecticut and New Jersey—may mount a challenge to the New York “convenience of employer” rule that has plagued remote workers since the 1950s.  This rule requires remote workers in other states to be taxed on income in New York if they work out of state for New York employers, for their own convenience. This rule has been unsuccessfully challenged previously by a law professor who resided in Connecticut and worked remotely during the pandemic.  Now the two neighboring states are changing the rules by establishing tax credits to their residents for challenging New York on taxes required to be paid to their nonresident state.
    Although in the past, the US Supreme Court refused to review a case in the New Hampshire/Massachusetts dispute4 on the same issue, challengers believe that the only way to end this issue between the states is through the Supreme Court.

    Future Consequences

    Remote work will continue to pose challenges to employers and employees. The presence of employees working in states other than their office location presents several tax implications to employers now that many of the waivers issued during the pandemic have expired. Besides withholding tax issues, many employers might now be determined to be conducting business activities in new states, creating income and sales tax nexus. With the current shift towards flexible work locations, these issues could become more significant.
    1. Schaad v. Alder, 2022-Ohio-340.
    2. House Bill 197.
    3. Schaad v. Alder, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-525. Ohio Supreme Court, February 14, 2024.
    4. New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, Orig. No. 154.
    TECHNICAL INFORMATION CONTACTS:
    Mark L. Nachbar
    Principal
    Ryan
    630.515.0477
    mark.nachbar@ryan.com
    Mary Bernard
    Director
    Ryan
    401.272.3363
    mary.bernard@ryan.com
    The material presented in this communication is intended to provide general information only and should solely be seen as broad guidance and not directed to the particular facts or circumstances of any individual who may read this publication. No liability is accepted for acts or omissions taken in reliance upon the content of this piece. Before taking (or not taking) any action, readers should seek professional advice specific to their situation.

    Related News

    Get Involved with IPT

    The IPT community Is Ready for You

    Join a diverse community of more than 6,600 members and achieve educational excellence, earn professional certification, and gain access to a world-class network. With IPT, you can advocate for equitable administration of state and local taxes, participate in volunteer opportunities to grow your leadership skills, and establish a stronger professional reputation by participating on our committees.

    18 Mar 2024State Income Tax
    Update: Remote Workers and Local Taxes
    Because of the conditions imposed by the pandemic beginning in 2020, many states announced waivers to companies impacted by mandatory work-from-home pronouncements.