Ohio HB 157 - Municipality Taxes

[AWW$HEEET]

HB 197 went into place sometime in 2020 to prevent remote workers from seeking a refund from the locality where they worked, prior to covid. It basically locked you in to keep paying taxes at the address of your employer.

 

Fast forward to about May/June 2021, HB 157 blew a hole in that and now allows workers to declare themselves remote, retroactive to 2021.

 

Anyone going to claim a refund? Funny because the city of cbus tax site has reference to HB 197 and a statement about not issuing refunds for 2020, but no reference to HB 157 which essentially nullifies 197.

[BuckeyeROC]

HB 197 went into place sometime in 2020 to prevent remote workers from seeking a refund from the locality where they worked, prior to covid. It basically locked you in to keep paying taxes at the address of your employer.

 

Fast forward to about May/June 2021, HB 157 blew a hole in that and now allows workers to declare themselves remote, retroactive to 2021.

 

Anyone going to claim a refund? Funny because the city of cbus tax site has reference to HB 197 and a statement about not issuing refunds for 2020, but no reference to HB 157 which essentially nullifies 197.

 

I filed for a refund from crappy Westerville and was denied earlier this year. So I can reapply and get my money back for WFH?

[AWW$HEEET]

Apparently its retroactive to Jan 2021, so yes for 2021. 2020 dealings are tied up in court. I think the Buckeye Institute was suing municipalities for that time frame.

[99FLHRCI]

Having moved to Ohio later in life, the concept of Municipality taxes was new to me. One thing I have never understood is the "taxation without representation". We pay where we work and where we live yet we can only vote where we live. So you get no vote in tax rates or usage. You often don't get the benefits from those taxes (as far as community centers and other resident benefits). I never understood (or at least heard of) why there wasn't a legal challenge about this.

[iwashmycar]

Having moved to Ohio later in life, the concept of Municipality taxes was new to me. One thing I have never understood is the "taxation without representation". We pay where we work and where we live yet we can only vote where we live. So you get no vote in tax rates or usage. You often don't get the benefits from those taxes (as far as community centers and other resident benefits). I never understood (or at least heard of) why there wasn't a legal challenge about this.

 

I have no clue but according to the Dispatch:

 

The reason Ohio cities collect commuter taxes is simple: Workers drive on city roads. They use city emergency services. They walk on city streets.

 

Local governments collect taxes from their residents for the very same reasons: They use local services.

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/05/19/ohio-moves-change-pandemic-rules-municipal-income-tax/5163233001/

[Furloaf]

Make those businesses and sales taxes. Oh wait that drives businesses and customers away from your locality. Guess we're stuck taxing the peasants.

[Geeto67]

Having moved to Ohio later in life, the concept of Municipality taxes was new to me. One thing I have never understood is the "taxation without representation". We pay where we work and where we live yet we can only vote where we live. So you get no vote in tax rates or usage. You often don't get the benefits from those taxes (as far as community centers and other resident benefits). I never understood (or at least heard of) why there wasn't a legal challenge about this.

 

You have kind of hit upon one of the unique quirks of American Jurisprudence: What does representation mean in "no taxation without representation"? The answer is that you have to have some representation in the government, not that you have to have representation in every government body levying taxes against you.

 

longer explanation:

 

The phrase "taxation without representation is tyranny" is directly tied with the Stamp Act of 1765 where if you printed anything in the colonies it had to have a tax stamp on it, and if you violated the law you were tried in an admiralty court with no jury. The colonists were tired of being taxed heavily (to make up for English losses in the seven years war) without having a representative in parliament, viewed the stamp act as the last straw and formed the stamp act congress (eventually known as the continental congress) in October 1765 in NY. These are the seeds of the American Revolution.

 

for the Colonists, Representation meant the people had to have a representative with some ability to advocate on their behalf in the newly formed federal government. The logic was that even if that representation wasn't a direct member of the body levying taxes, it could still advocate with some authority. For instance States weren't bound by taxation without representation until they adopted the TWR language from the federal constitution into their state constitution, it was generally thought sufficient that if a state imposed an unjust tax, the federal representative could pressure the state to repeal that tax, or subsequently impose a federal law that nullified that law.

 

Most people apply a modern interpretation of practicality to the phrase "taxation without representation" and think that means they can't be taxed at any level without a representative at that level and it just isn't true. US Colonies and territories (PR, Wash DC, etc) are full of US citizens who are taxed but do not have a single representative in government to advocate on their behalf and cannot vote in presidential elections.

 

One thing A state or a municipality does have to have in order to tax though is some justified standing for the tax. States, counties, and municipalities cannot tax residents of states they do not govern. They can also not double tax (although prior to 2015 they could).

 

The fight over where to tax work from home people is really just a fight between municipalities about who gets to tax workers, and one of the justifications for taxing them where they live is that they have representation in that municipality and it would be unjust to tax them where they don't have representation. Whether that argument holds true is up to the courts to decide.

[Tractor]

I don't miss the Ohio tax stuff but SC gets you in other areas. Here in the tourist area it's 7% to the state and anther 4% to the city for sales of anything. Annoying to those who live here however some businesses give local discounts. Good news is the area has tons of tax revenue, bad news they are pretty corrupt and find ways to make it go away.

 

Ohio's tax stuff might be better if you really think about it compared to tons of places. I'm interested in the thread because I nerd out on that tax and business stuff.

[STEVE-O]

I don't miss the Ohio tax stuff but SC gets you in other areas. Here in the tourist area it's 7% to the state and anther 4% to the city for sales of anything. Annoying to those who live here however some businesses give local discounts. Good news is the area has tons of tax revenue, bad news they are pretty corrupt and find ways to make it go away.

 

Ohio's tax stuff might be better if you really think about it compared to tons of places. I'm interested in the thread because I nerd out on that tax and business stuff.

 

my sister living in both NC and SC I always hated hearing the idea of the yearly personal property tax they hit you with

[99FLHRCI]

I have no clue but according to the Dispatch:

 

 

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/05/19/ohio-moves-change-pandemic-rules-municipal-income-tax/5163233001/

 

Same article: "Lima, for example, gets $20 million of its approximately $28 million general revenue fund from the municipal income tax. Sixty percent comes from non-residents."

 

Over half of the income is from people who cannot vote on the people in office, tax rates, usage, etc. In addition, they may use some of the services but other services (one example, Westerville has a community center with gym, park, etc) they have to pay a higher non resident rate or are not allowed to use because they are not a resident.

 

Just seems not quite right.

[99FLHRCI]

One thing A state or a municipality does have to have in order to tax though is some justified standing for the tax. States, counties, and municipalities cannot tax residents of states they do not govern. They can also not double tax (although prior to 2015 they could).

 

The fight over where to tax work from home people is really just a fight between municipalities about who gets to tax workers, and one of the justifications for taxing them where they live is that they have representation in that municipality and it would be unjust to tax them where they don't have representation. Whether that argument holds true is up to the courts to decide.

 

This is where I find it confusing. You are being taxed at the site of work and the site of residency. They are taxing a resident they don't govern (based on home address, I don't think someone that lives just across the border gets out of Ohio income tax if they work within the state. That is someone they don't govern on a bigger scale). They are also double taxing because you pay the income tax at both locations. It doesn't seem right but, I am guessing there is a "justification" somewhere. As far as using the services (roads, sidewalks, emergency services, etc.), so does every person that visits but, they get taxed on sales not something they are already taxed on elsewhere. Might seem more reasonable if only one municipality could tax you on your income.

[Tractor]

This is where I find it confusing. You are being taxed at the site of work and the site of residency. They are taxing a resident they don't govern (based on home address, I don't think someone that lives just across the border gets out of Ohio income tax if they work within the state. That is someone they don't govern on a bigger scale). They are also double taxing because you pay the income tax at both locations. It doesn't seem right but, I am guessing there is a "justification" somewhere. As far as using the services (roads, sidewalks, emergency services, etc.), so does every person that visits but, they get taxed on sales not something they are already taxed on elsewhere. Might seem more reasonable if only one municipality could tax you on your income.

 

 

It could be argued that the out of state person is taking a job away from someone who is a resident. It's all a convoluted mess with tons of points of contention.

[Geeto67]

This is where I find it confusing. You are being taxed at the site of work and the site of residency. They are taxing a resident they don't govern (based on home address, I don't think someone that lives just across the border gets out of Ohio income tax if they work within the state. That is someone they don't govern on a bigger scale). They are also double taxing because you pay the income tax at both locations. It doesn't seem right but, I am guessing there is a "justification" somewhere. As far as using the services (roads, sidewalks, emergency services, etc.), so does every person that visits but, they get taxed on sales not something they are already taxed on elsewhere. Might seem more reasonable if only one municipality could tax you on your income.

 

Pre 2015, you got taxed in both states if they did not have a reciprocity agreement. If they did have a reciprocity agreement you paid in one and requested an exemption in the other.

 

Post 2015, federal law prevents two states from collecting income tax on the same income. In a state with a reciprocity agreement, you just pick one state and pay there and request an exemption (typically you pay in the state where you work and get an exemption for your residency state). In states without a reciprocity agreement you have to FILE in both states, but you only pay in one and you get a credit in the other (again typically you pay where your employer withheld funds and get a credit in your residency state).

 

It could be argued that the out of state person is taking a job away from someone who is a resident. It's all a convoluted mess with tons of points of contention.

 

It could also be argued that the person is engaging in commerce in the state where their job is, that they are using state resources to generate personal income and therefore must pay for those state resources. Also that their income tax in their resident state may be set off by someone else who works in their resident state but lives in their work state. Not every tax is a disincentive, sometimes it's just to pay for resources consumed.

[Otis Nice]

Taxation is theft.

[AWW$HEEET]

Taxation is theft.

 

Yes.

[RyM3rC]

Yes.

 

Vote for dictator rymer, and I'll enact a simple website that authenticates you and lets you opt in or out of any level of taxation you like. You want roads? Visit the roads page. You want racetracks? You can fund those too. Easy!

[AWW$HEEET]

Vote for dictator rymer, and I'll enact a simple website that authenticates you and lets you opt in or out of any level of taxation you like. You want roads? Visit the roads page. You want racetracks? You can fund those too. Easy!

 

U have my vote.

[10phone2]

twitter and covid politics these days