PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10271 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10271 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10271 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10271 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2026 would limit which states can tax employees who work in multiple states. Their home state could still tax their pay, but another state generally could do so only if they worked there for more than 30 days in a calendar year. Employers’ duties to withhold and report state income tax would follow those limits. Certain athletes, entertainers, production workers, and public figures would be excluded from these protections.
This Act may be cited as the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2026.
No part of the wages or other remuneration earned by an employee who performs employment duties in more than one State shall be subject to income tax in any State other than— (1) the State of the employee’s residence; and (2) the State within which the employee is present and performing employment duties for more than 30 days during the calendar year in which the wages or other remuneration is earned.
Wages or other remuneration earned in any calendar year shall not be subject to State income tax withholding and reporting requirements unless the employee is subject to income tax in such State under subsection (a).
the term employee shall not include a professional athlete, professional entertainer, qualified production employee, or certain public figures.
For covered employees working in multiple states, the bill would prevent a state other than their state of residence from taxing their pay when they work there for 30 days or fewer in the calendar year. The residence state would not face this day threshold. The provision limits state taxation; it does not itself require a state to impose tax.
No part of the wages or other remuneration earned by an employee who performs employment duties in more than one State shall be subject to income tax in any State other than— (1) the State of the employee’s residence; and (2) the State within which the employee is present and performing employment duties for more than 30 days during the calendar year in which the wages or other remuneration is earned.
State requirements to withhold tax from pay and report that pay would apply only when the employee is subject to that state's income tax under the bill. Once the nonresident-state threshold is met, those requirements would reach pay earned from the start of employment duties in that state during the calendar year, rather than only pay earned after day 30.
Wages or other remuneration earned in any calendar year shall not be subject to State income tax withholding and reporting requirements unless the employee is subject to income tax in such State under subsection (a). Income tax withholding and reporting requirements under subsection (a)(2) shall apply to wages or other remuneration earned as of the commencement date of employment duties in the State during the calendar year.
For determining employer penalties related to state withholding and reporting, an employer could rely on an employee's annual estimate of expected work time in each state. That protection would not apply if the employer actually knew the employee's estimate was fraudulent or if the employer and employee worked together to evade tax.
For purposes of determining penalties related to an employer’s State income tax withholding and reporting requirements— (1) an employer may rely on an employee’s annual determination of the time expected to be spent by such employee in the States in which the employee will perform duties absent— (A) the employer’s actual knowledge of fraud by the employee in making the determination; or (B) collusion between the employer and the employee to evade tax;
Ordinary business records showing an employee's location would not by themselves prevent reliance on the employee's estimate. However, an employer that voluntarily maintains a qualifying daily work-location tracking system would have to use that system's data instead.
(2) except as provided in paragraph (3), if records are maintained by an employer in the regular course of business that record the location of an employee, such records shall not preclude an employer’s ability to rely on an employee’s determination under paragraph (1); and (3) notwithstanding paragraph (2), if an employer, at its sole discretion, maintains a time and attendance system that tracks where the employee performs duties on a daily basis, data from the time and attendance system shall be used instead of the employee’s determination under paragraph (1).
A qualifying tracking system would require employees to record, as they work, their location for every workday outside the state where they primarily perform their duties. It would also need to allow the employer to divide wages among the states where the employee works for that employer for income-tax purposes.
The term time and attendance system means a system in which— (A) the employee is required on a contemporaneous basis to record his work location for every day worked outside of the State in which the employee’s employment duties are primarily performed; and (B) the system is designed to allow the employer to allocate the employee’s wages for income tax purposes among all States in which the employee performs employment duties for such employer.
Generally, a workday would count toward the threshold in the state where the employee performs more duties than in any other state that day. If the employee works only in their residence state and one other state that day, the other state would get the day. Time spent in transit would not count when determining where duties were performed.
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an employee is considered present and performing employment duties within a State for a day if the employee performs more of the employee’s employment duties within such State than in any other State during a day. (B) If an employee performs employment duties in a resident State and in only one nonresident State during one day, such employee shall be considered to have performed more of the employee’s employment duties in the nonresident State than in the resident State for such day. (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the portion of the day during which the employee is in transit shall not be considered in determining the location of an employee’s performance of employment duties.
The bill would generally use the work state's definition of employee, but exclude professional athletes paid for services as athletes in professional athletic events. It would also exclude prominent professional performing artists paid per event for services as entertainers.
The term employee has the same meaning given to it by the State in which the employment duties are performed, except that the term employee shall not include a professional athlete, professional entertainer, qualified production employee, or certain public figures.
The term professional athlete means a person who performs services in a professional athletic event, provided that the wages or other remuneration are paid to such person for performing services in his or her capacity as a professional athlete.
The term professional entertainer means a person of prominence who performs services in the professional performing arts for wages or other remuneration on a per-event basis, provided that the wages or other remuneration are paid to such person for performing services in his or her capacity as a professional entertainer.
The production-worker exclusion would apply only when a person works directly on a state-qualified, certified, or approved film, television, or other commercial video production; their pay qualifies as a cost under the state's film incentive program; and that program requires withholding for the pay to qualify.
the term employee shall not include a professional athlete, professional entertainer, qualified production employee, or certain public figures.
The term qualified production employee means a person who performs production services of any nature directly in connection with a State qualified, certified or approved film, television or other commercial video production for wages or other remuneration, provided that the wages or other remuneration paid to such person are qualified production costs or expenditures under such State’s qualified, certified or approved film incentive program, and that such wages or other remuneration must be subject to withholding under such film incentive program as a condition to treating such wages or other remuneration as a qualified production cost or expenditure.
The public-figure exclusion would cover prominent people paid per event for services at a particular speech, public appearance, or similar event.
the term employee shall not include a professional athlete, professional entertainer, qualified production employee, or certain public figures.
The term certain public figures means persons of prominence who perform services for wages or other remuneration on a per-event basis, provided that the wages or other remuneration are paid to such person for services provided at a discrete event, in the nature of a speech, public appearance, or similar event.
The work state's definition of employer would control if it has one; otherwise, the bill would use the definition in section 3401(d) of the federal tax code. The work state could limit what counts as wages or other pay. The bill defines State as any of the several states.
The term employer has the meaning given such term in section 3401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, unless such term is defined by the State in which the employee’s employment duties are performed, in which case the State’s definition shall prevail.
The term wages or other remuneration may be limited by the State in which the employment duties are performed.
The term State means any of the several States.
If enacted, the bill would take effect on January 1 of the second calendar year beginning after enactment. It would not apply to tax obligations that arose before that effective date.
(a) Effective date This Act shall take effect on January 1 of the second calendar year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) Applicability This Act shall not apply to any tax obligation that accrues before the effective date of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 3, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T15:27:57Z. 2026-09-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not determine formal earmark status in accompanying materials or other versions.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the stated criteria. Coverage limits and generally applicable administration rules were not treated as preferential benefits by themselves. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI