A man spends thirty-one years working for the same employer in a state with an income tax, retires, and moves somewhere that does not have one. Eighteen months later an envelope shows up from the revenue department of the state he left. They want income tax on his pension. Their reasoning is that he earned that pension inside their borders, so the money belongs to them no matter where he sleeps now. He calls the pension administrator, who confirms the payments are correct and has absolutely nothing to say about the letter. The notice looks official. It cites a rule. It gives him thirty days.
He does not owe it. A federal law took that power away from his old state decades ago, and it did so specifically because states were sending letters exactly like this one.
The protection arrived in 1996 and it is short enough to explain in a sentence. A state cannot tax retirement income belonging to someone who is not one of its residents. That is the whole idea. Before it existed, a handful of states treated a pension as money sourced to wherever the work happened, which meant a retiree could leave and still get billed every year for the rest of their life. California was the most enthusiastic practitioner and the practice picked up the nickname source taxing. Congress did not ask the states to knock it off politely. It removed their authority.
The catch is that the law protects a specific list of things, and the list is where every argument actually happens.
Covered: traditional pensions, profit sharing plans, and 401(k) plans. IRAs, including money you rolled into one from an old employer. SEP plans for the self employed. The annuity arrangements schools and nonprofits use. The deferred compensation plans that state and local government employees pay into. Government employee retirement systems. Military retired pay. Certain older union funded plans. And certain payments to a retired partner, where a written arrangement providing retirement pay for prior service was already in place immediately before the retirement began and the payments also meet the law’s distribution requirements.
Not everything that shows up after you retire is on that list, and the leftovers are what generate tax bills. Severance. Unused vacation and sick leave cashed out at the door. Stock awards and restricted stock. Accumulated comp time. These are pay for work you already did rather than distributions from a retirement arrangement, so the state where you did the work can still tax its share.
Disability and survivor payments need a closer look rather than a rule. Nothing gets excluded because somebody wrote death benefit or disability on it. What matters is the arrangement actually cutting the check. A survivor payment coming out of a covered pension plan is still money from a covered pension plan.
Then there is nonqualified deferred compensation, which gets in through a door narrow enough to be worth measuring. If an executive deferred pay into a plan that sits outside the regular retirement plan rules, that money is protected only if it comes out in roughly equal installments, at least once a year, spread over either their life expectancy or a stretch of ten years or more. There is a second way in for money paid after leaving a job under a plan that exists purely to restore benefits the regular plan limits chopped off. An ordinary deferred compensation balance that lands as one lump sum a few months after retirement does not satisfy the installment route. Unless it qualifies under that second door, the restoring-lost-benefits one, your former state is free to come after it.
Two things about this law get oversold constantly.
It does not make anything tax free. It decides which state gets to tax you, and the answer is the state where you actually live. That state can tax every dollar under its own rules. All the law does is stop everybody else from reaching in.
And it hands the definition of resident back to the states. The protection applies to people who are not residents, which means somebody has to settle whether you are one, and each state gets to answer that using its own test. Move to Florida but keep the house, the driver’s license, and the voter registration back home, and your old state may take the position that you never left. If that argument wins, the federal protection never switches on, because you were their resident the whole time. Residency comes first. The federal law comes second.
Picture a woman who retires at 63, leaves a state with an income tax, and settles in one without. Four payments arrive over the next year.
Her pension pays $4,100 a month. Protected. Her old state cannot touch it.
She rolls her 401(k) into an IRA and starts taking withdrawals. Also protected, both on the way out of the plan and coming out of the IRA.
Her deferred compensation balance of $240,000 pays out as a single check ninety days after she separates. Not installments, not spread over ten years, and not a plan built to restore chopped off benefits. The federal shield does not cover it. That does not automatically mean her old state taxes the whole $240,000, though. It means the question falls back to that state’s own rules for taxing nonresidents, and depending on those rules and her work history there, the answer could be all of it, some of it, or none.
Her unused vacation payout of $11,400 is wages wearing a retirement hat. Outside the shield as well, and back to the old state’s rules.
Same retirement, same employer, same move, and two of the four are locked up tight while two are left arguing with a revenue department. Which side a payment lands on has nothing to do with the timing or with where she was standing when the money hit her account.
Most of the fights over this are not about the law at all. They are about what the paperwork claims the payment was.
When a plan administrator reports genuine retirement money on a W-2 instead of the retirement form, the old state’s computer sees wages sourced to that state and mails an assessment. The money was protected all along. The form said wages, and the form is the only thing the state read. Untangling that afterward means arguing about the true character of a payment against a document the state treats as gospel, which is a much worse afternoon than catching the error while it can still be corrected.
Three habits make the protection actually work. Sort your payment streams into covered and not covered before you move, because the deferred compensation and the wage style payouts are the ones that generate letters and you can spot them in advance. Ask each payer what form they intend to use, and if genuine retirement income is headed for a W-2, raise it while somebody can still fix it. And keep whatever proves when your residency changed, because a state that wants to tax you will attack the residency question rather than the federal law, which it cannot win.
If a letter does arrive about income the law covers, the answer is the federal law itself, not a debate about the state’s sourcing rules. Those rules may well say exactly what the notice claims. Federal law goes over the top of them.
I write one of these every day, one retirement rule, explained in plain language and verified against the source. The daily email is free: subscribe here.
Full archive, worksheets, and search live at RetirementNewsRundown.com.
Disclaimer
This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not tax, legal, or financial advice and does not create an advisor-client relationship. Always consult appropriate professionals regarding your specific situation.