I agree totally with Chief_Seadog, used that very statute to show my Michigan employer that since we travel INTERSTATE I don’t pay or need to file MI taxes nor should the employer deduct those taxes. Excuse was well then you can get it back, NO, you don’t deduct and I save tons of hassle.
2 Likes
I’m amazed a company in the business of interstate shipping isn’t aware of that fact for non resident employees.
1 Like
You don’t get to pick and choose the law you want and you don’t get to vote on it. The federal law and the state law have to be considered together.
If you earn more than 50% of your money in a state other than your home state, you are subject to state taxes in that other state. Unless there’s a reciprocity agreement. In that case, you pay in your home state only.
Likewise, if you work in more than one state but earn less than 50% of your salary in any one state, the federal law controls exclusively.
.
No, they don’t. See Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Federal law pre-eempts state law when the latter conflicts with the former.
And while it is true that at one time states apportioned income tax based on what was earned where, the federal law cited in the thread above was designed specifically to put an end to that – for eligible mariners, just as other federal laws did for truckers and rail workers.
Not if you are an eligible mariner. That is, not if you work on a vessel in the waters of more than one state.
Yeah, I don’t understand why people always cite Title 49. I said I wasn’t going to look it up, but alas: Title 46 is Shipping and its pretty clear and concise on the matter, in the section aptly titled: 46 U.S. Code § 11108 - Taxes
(Title 46 Shipping Subtitle II Vessels & Seamen Part G Merchant Seaman Protection and Relief Chapter 111 Protection and Relief Sub 11108 Taxes)
(a)Withholding.—
Wages due or accruing to a master or seaman on a vessel in the foreign, coastwise, intercoastal, interstate, or noncontiguous trade or an individual employed on a fishing vessel or any fish processing vessel may not be withheld under the tax laws of a State or a political subdivision of a State. However, this section does not prohibit withholding wages of a seaman on a vessel in the coastwise trade between ports in the same State if the withholding is under a voluntary agreement between the seaman and the employer of the seaman.
(b)Liability.—(1)Limitation on jurisdiction to tax.—
An individual to whom this subsection applies is not subject to the income tax laws of a State or political subdivision of a State, other than the State and political subdivision in which the individual resides, with respect to compensation for the performance of duties described in paragraph (2).
(2)Application.—This subsection applies to an individual—
(A)
engaged on a vessel to perform assigned duties in more than one State as a pilot licensed under section 7101 of this title or licensed or authorized under the laws of a State; or(B)
who performs regularly assigned duties while engaged as a master, officer, or crewman on a vessel operating on navigable waters in 2 or more States.
1 Like
"(B)
who performs regularly assigned duties while engaged as a master, officer, or crewman on a vessel operating on navigable waters in 2 or more States." (emphasis added)
In the case of working in a single state, other than the mariner’s state of residence, the aforementioned provisions apply. Which as a practical matter is essentially the same result.
No need to drag the constitution into this. The Supremacy Clause only applies if there is a conflict. There’s no conflict in this case, unless multiple states are attempting to collect. In that instance there would be a Supremacy issue.
After re-reading the OP, I see that it says that NO TAXES were withheld. I originally had misread the OP as to having had withholding issues.
The OP filed needless paper.
Yes. That’s what it says. 2 or more states.
Several states (New York, Hawaii, and Oregon … I’m sure there are others), in carving out exceptions to state law regarding who must have state income tax withheld (at least one of these states did so after being challenged in court), specifically mention that the state law has been pre-empted by the subsequent federal law. In fact, one of the decisions is titled “Preemption.”
Early on I think there was a prediction of an abundance of sea lawyers to this discussion. That guy must be Nostradumbass.
4 Likes
Hopefully, I don’t violate any rules here, but I’ve been using Maguire taxes ever since the clown in California got busted by the IRS for tax fraud. Maguire was, as I recall, merchant sailor. He is in Maine.
If you’re in interstate trade it doesn’t sound like any percent matters. That sounds like the law about land based workers, like a mobile technician in the DC area that works in Maryland, Virginia, and DC, but that doesn’t apply here.
1 Like
As a practical matter, I think you’re correct. But Title 49 clearly applies as it mentions water carriers and sailors.
The problem, as I see it, is that Titles 46 and 49 don’t mesh perfectly, thus creating confusion. They’re almost saying the same thing.
Unless the vessel worked in CA. Then you may be subject to CA income tax…
As long as you were involved in interstate commerce it doesn’t matter if you worked in California.
California might withhold taxes but it doesn’t mean you actually owe them taxes.
1 Like
I have worked the California to Hawaii service and taxes were not taken out.