A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Multi-State Worker Tax Fairness Act of 2026 aims to amend title 4 of the United States Code. It seeks to limit how States can tax compensation earned by nonresident telecommuters and other multi-State workers. Under this bill, a State can only deem a nonresident individual to be working in that State if they are physically present there. It specifically prevents States from taxing individuals when they are physically present in a different State. The Act also clarifies how physical presence and work periods are determined.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Does this cut taxes for middle-income families?
The bill reduces the tax burden on telecommuters by preventing states from taxing income earned while physically present in other states.
- Scored +4
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The bill benefits many professional telecommuters who are likely to be in the middle class by limiting their tax liability.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to do business across state lines?
By standardizing how multi-state workers are taxed, the bill facilitates smoother interstate economic activity.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill restricts the ability of individual states to set their own tax rules for nonresident telecommuters.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Limitation of State Taxation: A State may only tax a nonresident individual for periods when that individual is physically present in that State (Section 2(a)). This prevents individuals from being taxed by a State where they are not physically working.
-
Protection Against 'Convenience' Tests: States are prohibited from claiming a nonresident is working in their State just because they are working from home for convenience or because they fail a "convenience of the employer" test (Section 2(b)).
-
Clarity on Work Periods: The bill prevents States from misclassifying time as work time, nonworking time, or unpaid time if the individual's employer deems it otherwise (Section 2(c)). This provides consistency based on the employer's determination of work periods.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No Negative Impacts Identified: The provided text does not contain information regarding potential negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill benefits many professional telecommuters who are likely to be in the middle class by limiting their tax liability. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High income earners who telecommute across state lines will benefit from clearer and more restrictive state tax laws.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — The bill reduces the tax burden on telecommuters by preventing states from taxing income earned while physically present in other states.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — By standardizing how multi-state workers are taxed, the bill facilitates smoother interstate economic activity. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal oversight of state taxation authority regarding nonresident employees. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill restricts the ability of individual states to set their own tax rules for nonresident telecommuters.
- 8/24/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Chris PappasDemocrat · New Hampshire