ARTICLE
29 April 2021

Mike Cullers On New Hampshire v. Massachusetts

SP
Squire Patton Boggs LLP

Contributor

Squire Patton Boggs is a full service global law firm providing insight at the point where law, business and government meet, giving you a voice, supporting your ambitions and achieving successful outcomes.

With a multidisciplinary team of over 1,500 lawyers in over 40 offices across four continents, we are well-established geographically with strong local and regional positions in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Latin America, and our practice experience spans all key sectors.

In a complaint filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction,[1] New Hampshire has sued Massachusetts for attempting to tax residents
United States Massachusetts Mississippi New Hampshire New Jersey Pennsylvania Tax
Squire Patton Boggs LLP are most popular:
  • within Tax, Finance and Banking and Immigration topic(s)
  • in United States

In a complaint filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction,1 New Hampshire has sued Massachusetts for attempting to tax residents of the Granite State who normally work in Massachusetts but are working at home during the pandemic. Read Mike's comments on the case in The Bond Buyer here ($).

 

Additional Reading:

Information on the case from the New Hampshire Governor's Office.

Mass. governor answers question about NH lawsuit over income taxes

"New Hampshire gains allies in tax fight against Massachusetts," New Hampshire Union Leader, (Dec. 23, 2020; updated Jan. 25, 2021).

Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660 (1976) (holding that Pennsylvania could not sue New Jersey in the Supreme Court on behalf of Pennsylvania's citizens with respect to a New Jersey transportation benefits tax imposed on income of Pennsylvania citizens derived from New Jersey because Pennsylvania's suit represented nothing more than an aggregation of private lawsuits that those Pennsylvania citizens could have brought against New Jersey for taxes withheld from them, and no sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests of Pennsylvania were implicated).

Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934) (holding, and unjustly depriving us of a monumental spectacle, that Monaco couldn't sue Mississippi in the Supreme Court without Mississippi's  consent to enforce pre-Civil War bonds issued by various Mississippi entities, which had been in default for around 90 years, and which had been donated to the Monaco consulate in Paris by certain unknown troublemakers who "had been advised that there was no basis upon which they could maintain a suit against Mississippi on the bonds, but that 'such a suit could only be maintained by a foreign government or one of the United States'").

Footnote

1 U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

Originally published January 29, 2021.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More