Saturday, September 12, 2020
Edward Zelinky (Cardozo), New York's Ill-Advised Taxation of Nonresidents During COVID-19, 167 Tax Notes Fed. 1001 (May 25, 2020):
For 2020, New York should tax neither the incomes of nonresident telecommuters nor the incomes of the volunteers who came from across the country to help New York confront the COVID-19 emergency.If New York will not act in this sensible fashion, Congress should. In the next round of coronavirus legislation, Congress can prohibit the states from taxing, for the duration of the coronavirus emergency, the incomes of nonresident telecommuters and out-of-state medical volunteers.
Edward Zelinky (Cardozo), CalSavers and ERISA Redux: The District Court’s Second Opinion in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, NYU Rev. Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation (2020):
On March 10, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Morrison C. England, Jr., J.) issued its second substantive opinion in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. Confirming its initial decision, the district court again held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not preempt the statute creating the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program (CalSavers).
This second opinion is important for two reasons. First, it confirms that ERISA does not preempt California’s retirement savings program for the private sector. Taken together, the district court’s opinions about CalSavers provide a roadmap of the ERISA status, not just of CalSavers, but also of other states’ similar retirement security programs. ERISA does not preempt these government-operated programs.
Second, the district court decisions exemplify ERISA’s relatively limited preemptive effect in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. This restricted interpretation of ERISA preemption contrasts with the broader understanding which the Supreme Court first embraced. The district court was right to reject the plea that it return to that original, more expansive approach to ERISA preemption.