Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News IT

Telecommuters May Owe Extra State Taxes 617

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the death-and-taxes dept.
marct22 writes "According to Cnet News, the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by a Tennessee programmer who was forced to pay extra taxes because he was telecommuting to a job in New York. Apparently he worked in NY 25% of the time, which he didn't argue about, but the other 75% of the time he worked from home in Tennessee, which doesn't have income taxes. Also, it appears that right now, for those of us who live in one state and telecommute in another may be doubly taxed if both have income tax. There is a Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act in the Senate, but it has not emerged from committee so has not been voted on."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telecommuters May Owe Extra State Taxes

Comments Filter:
  • SSH? VNC? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Short Circuit (52384) * <mikemol@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:35PM (#13935661) Homepage Journal
    Don't tell me half the people here haven't used these tools...Work on a website in California? A chicago colo? Did you earn money for it?

    ...Do you owe taxes on it?
    • Re:SSH? VNC? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheOtherAgentM (700696) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:37PM (#13935681)
      Seriously, I would owe taxes in a lot of states if this were taxable. Shouldn't you just tax a person in his place of employment if he is a remote worker?
    • Re:SSH? VNC? (Score:3, Informative)

      by boldtbanan (905468)

      This has been tax law for ages. If you live in one state and work in another, whether driving over the state line to work in an office, or telecommuting in, you owe taxes in both states. That's why you make sure you register your residence in the same state as your job, for the purposes of taxes. It certainly doesn't help his case that he was physically in NY 25% of the time, although many states allow you to deduct taxes paid to another state on a given income from the amount you owe them.

      This also ope

      • Re:SSH? VNC? (Score:3, Informative)

        by rosciol (925673)

        This has been tax law for ages. If you live in one state and work in another, whether driving over the state line to work in an office, or telecommuting in, you owe taxes in both states.

        I'm not a tax expert, but I do know how my own taxes work and I'm pretty sure what you just said is not right. As a consultant, I work in many different states during the year, and my firm keeps track of how many of my billable hours are in each state. At the end of the year, I file taxes by state based on the time I w

    • I just emailed the IRS informing them that CmdrTaco owes a decade of back taxes.

      INFORMANT FORM

      Name: Robert Malda
      Aliases: CmdrTaco, (1)
      Residence: Michigan
      Company: Slashdot (OSDN)
      Occupation: Human dupe machine, spellcheck input tester
      Taxes Owed: 120 months
      Salary: $0.02/click
    • States love doing this sort of thing because it brings in revenue without hurting most of the voters. Most voters see moves like this as giving them more for nothing.

      But this is just short-sighted. Business will just go to states with more tax-friendly policies or maybe offshore.

  • The system works! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by conner_bw (120497)
    I too support working from a red state that receives substantially more federal funding [feri.org] by not paying taxes to a blue state that receives the least [typepad.com].

    If it ain't broke don't fix it.

  • by Chocolate Teapot (639869) * on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:36PM (#13935670) Journal
    A guy plies his trade in a place where certain taxes apply and he has a problem with this? Since when did not having a physical presence in a place exempt you from from their laws? Really, as far as New York is concerned this guy is working in their manor and drawing an income from their economy and is therefore liable for their taxes. The fact that he does not actually shift his carcass over the the state line is irrelevant. Everyone expects free beer these days.
    • by Angostura (703910) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:41PM (#13935714)
      Speaking as someone who lives in London, UK, and is employed by a New York-based company, and pays UK taxes, I think I see a flaw in your argument.
      • Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chocolate Teapot (639869) * on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:53PM (#13935847) Journal
        I also live in London, and I think we both know the difference between Income Tax and Council Tax. Nobody is asking this guy to pay for local amenities. However, after doing a bit more Googling, I think that the issue is not that he is being asked to pay Income tax in new York for his telecommuting, but rather that he is being asked to pay that tax on his full income, without regard for where he earns it.
    • by Crazy Man on Fire (153457) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:41PM (#13935717) Homepage
      Taxes pay for the services that you use. Is this guy using the roads to get to work? Are his kids going to the schools? No! Why should he pay for that stuff? The taxes he pays in his home state cover this stuff in his home state. The people who live in the other state should be paying for those services provided there.
      • by Soko (17987) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:50PM (#13935809) Homepage
        Besides, does this guy get to vote in New York State elections now? If not, it's taxation without representation.

        Soko
        • I agree! Many people have mentioned this point, but I wasn't thinking of it in my original post.
        • by iambarry (134796) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @06:03PM (#13935938) Homepage
          If not, it's taxation without representation.
          Lots of taxes are without representation. Non-citizens pay taxes, but don't vote. If you travel to another state and purchase goods you may pay sales tax, but not vote. I work in another state and pay plenty of taxes there, but can't vote there.

          So, what's representation got to do with it?

          He wants to earn money in New York (as they pay him in New York). New York wants to tax that money. The courts say New York has a right to tax income paid in New York. What's wrong with that?
          • Another post says new york wants him to pay taxes on his full income.

            I think whatever state the company your working for is in, despite your physical location, is the state who you should pay taxes to- for the time worked for that company only- and not have to pay it again in your home state.

            Now here's a bonus question, I'm an independant contractor from Iowa, but my main client is out of california. I'm technically an employee of myself, but am receiving 'employment'/work from CA. Am I exempt from CA taxes
          • Representation (Score:3, Informative)

            by antizeus (47491)

            So, what's representation got to do with it?

            Taxation without representation was one of the big gripes that the American colonists had with England, their mother country at the time. The crown was increasing taxes on the colonists to help raise funds that were depleted during the French and Indian War, but was not giving them representation in Parliament.

            A couple hundred years later, we like to believe that the ideals expressed during the founding of the country are still important, so a complaint such as

        • I live in D.C. you insensetive clod.
        • by vwjeff (709903)
          Besides, does this guy get to vote in New York State elections now? If not, it's taxation without representation.

          I was thinking the exact same thing. Some of my friends are in a simliar situation because they live on the Wisconsin/Illinois border. I live and work in Wisconsin so I pay Wisconsin Income taxes. Some of my friends work in Wisconsin but live in Illinois. Do they pay the Wisconsin and Illinois income tax? No. They pay the Illinois income tax because that is where they live. They do not get
      • I'd like to start by saying that I'm not entirely sure how I feel about how this should ultimately play out but would like to respond to this specific point that the guy in Tenn is not benefitting from the taxes he would be paying for the New York work. One argument to the contrary would be that he _is_ benefitting from that tax money he is paying as the company he is working for couldn't exist to give him a job if the roads there weren't built/maintained. He would not be able to get the job if the 'local
      • by humina (603463) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @06:02PM (#13935925) Homepage
        If you move to another country like India, you won't have to pay taxes in New York.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      What physical services or resources, for which the state wishes to be compensated, is he using? Does he have the right to vote in that state, prorated by his taxed percentage? I suspect the answers are, respectively, "none" and "no."

      It's not expecting free beer. It's expecting to pay for beer only when you get beer in return.
      • by DrFrob (568991)
        This is a good point. If he couldn't vote in NY but was being taxed for working in NY, then he would be taxed without any representation... a principle that kinda started the revolutionary war.
    • by grommit (97148) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:42PM (#13935742)
      I think you're forgetting what those taxes are for. It may seem like it but taxes aren't there just to take your money. They're there for the government to provide services (such as roads, police, etc) for those people that make use of them, the residents. Hence, if you aren't a resident of a state and benefit in no way from the services that the government there provides, why should you be paying taxes to that government?
      • "Hence, if you aren't a resident of a state and benefit in no way from the services that the government there provides, why should you be paying taxes to that government?"

        Except that he does see benefit from the services those taxes provide. Most of the services you mention are local services, anyway -- not state services.

        Second, that job that he telecommutes to wouldn't exist without the services that NYS provides to his company.
        • That's why his employer pays taxes...
        • Second, that job that he telecommutes to wouldn't exist without the services that NYS provides to his company.

          So if he's a consultant who occasionally travels to 3-6 states where his client base exists while living elsewhere, he should pay the full tax rate for each state based on your logic? That's ridiculous, regardless of how many services a state is providing to his clients.
    • by Laura_DilDio (874259) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:43PM (#13935754)
      Screw that! Does he utilize any New York resources? Does he get the right to vote? No taxation without representation? Taxes paid while visiting in New York, or even taxes paid on wages earned while physically in New York are a little more understandable.

      If they decide to tax this guy under the auspices that he is drawing an income on NY economy, then they should FULLY TAX all of the Indians who work at call centers for NY companies!

    • by SpiceWare (3438)
      He's not using their roads, emergency services, etc.

      Also, since he doesn't have the right to vote there it could be considered taxation without representation.
    • by Malc (1751)
      You guys fought a war over taxation without representation. Don't you know your own history?
    • by madajb (89253) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:50PM (#13935812)
      That's the whole point of the Republic.
      New York's laws stop at the New York border.
      Tennesee's laws stop at the Tennessee border.

      The fact that he did not "actually shift his carcass over the state line" (at least 75% of the time) is highly relevant.

      -ajb

    • I think the objection isn't to the taxation so much as to the fact that you could wind up liable for taxes on the same income in two states at the same time, which seems fundamentally unreasonable.

    • Since when did not having a physical presence in a place exempt you from from their laws?

      Er... physical presence is just about the FIRST thing I think about when wondering if I'm subject to the laws of any given place.
  • by Shadow Wrought (586631) <<shadow.wrought> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:37PM (#13935674) Homepage Journal
    And no, I'm not bitter that they get to stay home while stand out in the cold, blustery rain. That has absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to do with it. OK, so it actually has everything to do with it, dagnabbit.

    As it becomes more commonplace, congress will figure it out. They always do, right?

  • by twiddlingbits (707452) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:39PM (#13935695)
    Programmers working in India who are using Servers hosted in the USA to do development for a US firm will owe US Income Tax ;)
    • by magarity (164372) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:51PM (#13935822)
      Parent is 'insightful', not funny.
       
      Yes, they would, using the same logic as where the work is actually done whether it's from one state to another or one country to another. And to get you to pay it would probably be deducted up front and you'd have to file for a refund. Does India's equivalent of the IRS give a discount for income taxes paid to other countries like the US's IRS?
    • by CGP314 (672613) <CGPNO@SPAMColinGregoryPalmer.net> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:52PM (#13935836) Homepage
      Hell, I moved out of the US and trained as a teacher in England and now work at a school in London. Can anyone explain to me why I still have to pay income tax to the U.S. government when I don't use any of their services?


      -Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
      • by forand (530402)
        Well assuming you are a US citizen. . . do you use your passport? Do you use all the treaties that have been signed by the U.S. government to allow you to travel freely in other countries? If you get injured or arrested while in another country are you going to use the US consulate services?

        The government is not in the business of charging use fees instead it is like having insurance; you hope to god you won't need the military to come in and get your butt out of Sudan but you are really happy that th
      • Taxes? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Aexia (517457)
        The first $80,000 or so you earn abroad is exempt and isn't subject to SSI or Medicare payroll taxes. And that's before you even touch the usual cornucopia of tax exemptions.
        • Re:Taxes? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Stephen Maturin (530754) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @06:20AM (#13939661)
          Disclaimer: I am not a Tax accountant, but I AM an Expat
          It's also exempt from Income Tax. I think you also have to be on an overseas payroll. If you're on the payroll of a US company, they still take out FICA/Medicare.
          HOWEVER, you MUST be out of the US 330 out of a 365 day period. For example, if I leave the US on 01-NOV-2005, then until 01-NOV-2006, I can only be in the US a total of 35 days, or else I owe taxes on that 80,000. There's a form you fill out with your employer (I think its form 679... I just did mine for 2006) that will keep your employer from deducting any taxes on the first 80,000.
  • Income Tax (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:40PM (#13935701) Homepage Journal
    This should be abolished anyway. This is yet another example of why.
    • by Seanasy (21730)

      So, how should the government generate revenue without an income tax? Sales tax? Property tax? Estate tax? Donations?

      • First of all, except for a few rare exceptions the government does not GENERATE revenue. Thats why it has to tax the citizens. If it generated revenue, it would be self-sufficient.

        That being said, a better way of doing it would be via a sales tax. That way you get charged for the commerce you actually participate in, not your potential to particpate.
        • by Seanasy (21730)
          First of all, except for a few rare exceptions the government does not GENERATE revenue. Thats why it has to tax the citizens. If it generated revenue, it would be self-sufficient.

          Huh? Tax money == state revenue. The state generates revenue by collecting a tax on incomes (among other things).

          That being said, a better way of doing it would be via a sales tax. That way you get charged for the commerce you actually participate in, not your potential to particpate.

          That'd be a big sales tax. And why should

  • by ajdowntown (91738) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:41PM (#13935713) Homepage
    This would be stupid. If this were true, then I would owe my left arm. Let me explain.

    I worked as a flight attendant. I was based out of a nearby state. And very often, I would be sent to other airports to work out of there. So, could I possibly owe taxes in every state I worked out of?

    I know this is telecommuting, but the idea is the same, I technically lived in one state and worked out of many others...

    Stupid...
    • I am a consultant with one of the big four audit firms, and each week I submit billable hours by state and city. Last year I spent 150 nights in hotels, and for any state where I worked over 40 hours I had to pay income tax. Aside from inflating my H&R block bill, I think the system is fair. I get a tax credit in NY (my home state) for the hours I don't work here, and pay those taxes (often at lower tax levels) in the states I travel to.
  • Fairtax (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ScoLgo (458010) <.scolgo. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:42PM (#13935739) Homepage
    This is why the US of A needs the FairTax [fairtax.org].

    It would do away with all this income tax malarkey. At least at the federal level. Once that happens, it's a good bet that individual states would follow suit.

    • Re:Fairtax (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot&monkelectric,com> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:51PM (#13935824)
      Every tax proposal I see somehow provides extreme benefit to the extremely wealthy. Is the fair tax any different?
      • Re:Fairtax (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GreyWolf3000 (468618) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:59PM (#13935899) Journal
        Define what you mean by "extreme benefit."

        The extremely wealthy are always going to be the best off at the end of the day. They are, after all, the richest. Any tax system that would break that would break the fundamental laws of the universe. You can't have the extremely wealthy wind up poor after taxes, and vice versa

        As far as a tax code going out of its way to help the extremely wealthy, well, all I have to say is that our graduated income tax in the US pretty much proves that we don't have such a tax code.

        • Re:Fairtax (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Red Flayer (890720)
          "As far as a tax code going out of its way to help the extremely wealthy, well, all I have to say is that our graduated income tax in the US pretty much proves that we don't have such a tax code."

          That's pretty funny. Last I checked, the extremely wealthy pay a smaller portion of their income in taxes as any group except for the destitute. Seeing as most of their income is not wages.

          The stated graduated income tax rates are a joke. No person making six figures or more is paying even 25% of their inco
      • Re:Fairtax (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScoLgo (458010) <.scolgo. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @06:09PM (#13935981) Homepage
        Yes. It really benefits everyone. It's best to read it for yourself, but here are some quick points...

        1. The tax burden shifts from those who work to those who spend. This would now include tourists, drug dealers, prostitutes, children, retirees, etc...

        2. You are only taxed on new goods. Sell your used computer, car, house, whatever, without worying about taxes.

        3. Every head of household will receive a monthly 'rebate' check from the federal government to reimburse the taxes collected on basic necessities. The closer to the poverty line you are, the larger the check. For instance, a family of four living at the poverty line would receive a monthly check of $497.00, (estimated at the time the Fairtax book was written).

        4. Every pay period, you receive your gross wages. No Federal Withholding, no Social Security withholding, no Medicare withholding. Those taxes are paid from the sales tax.

        5. No more April 15th. It's just another spring day.

        6. Outsourcing of jobs and finances will stop as the flow is reversed to what will become the biggest and best tax haven in the world.

        So... do the rich benefit? Sure they do. But not at the expense of the middle-class or the poor. Our current tax system is almost completely broken and needs a major overhaul.

        Oh, and sooner is better than later.

        • Sigh (Score:3, Informative)

          by geekoid (135745)
          "1. The tax burden shifts from those who work to those who spend."

          thus hurting the people in the lowest income levels. Many of those people wither don't need to pay taxes i.e. EXEMPT or low income person who gets most, if not all, of there money back.

          "2. You are only taxed on new goods. Sell your used computer, car, house, whatever, without worying about taxes."

          The volume of lost tax revenue on home sales alone would intitute a huge amount of maoney you will need to recoup. That for the times you actuall ke
        • Re:Fairtax (Score:4, Interesting)

          by khallow (566160) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @11:20PM (#13938136)
          A fairer scheme would be a tax on assets. After all, wealthy people and businesses are really the ones who benefit from government above all others. So they should be the ones who pay for government services that protect their wealth. And such a tax is not regressive unlike this sales tax (incidentally the so called "rebate check" is just a kludge that doesn't change the fundamentally regressive nature of the tax).

          Also, this aligns government with the preservation and increase of wealth in its citizens. After all, under your current scheme, government has a strong incentive to increase spending on new goods in order to increase tax revenue. OTOH, if they can only tax assets, then they have a strong incentive to increase the value of assets in order to increase revenue.

          This scheme also drives up the cost of goods and services and makes the cost of taxation less transparent to the end user. That adds economic inefficiency to the system and hides important information from the citizen (namely, how much of your money went to government?).

      • Re:Fairtax (Score:3, Informative)

        by mc6809e (214243)

        Every tax proposal I see somehow provides extreme benefit to the extremely wealthy. Is the fair tax any different?

        Don't confuse income and wealth. They're not the same thing at all.

        Compare the widow that owns her home and has $1,000,000 in the bank making 3% interest and the programmer making $50,000 with a mortgage.

        Her income is just $30,000/year compared to the programmer's $50,000, yet it's obvious she's more wealthy.

        This is how rich New England Democrats can get away with advocating "taxing the wealthy"
      • Re:Fairtax (Score:3, Informative)

        by rabtech (223758)
        FYI: rich people hire lawyers and accountants to make sure they pay the least amount of taxes possible. They also often setup non-profit trusts and such to shelter much of their money.

        Not to mention that the really, really rich (like >1 million in investments) generate their money via capital gains which is an entirely different issue.

        So while the "nominal" rate in some of these systems (fair tax, sales tax, etc) may appear to decrease we must realize that the really rich aren't paying the so-called nomi
  • by Mydron (456525)
    ... where its a-okay to outsource to China and India, but to a low-tax state? Hell no.
  • by LexNaturalis (895838) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:44PM (#13935762)
    If you're in the military you can choose your "state of residence" and that's the state that you actually pay taxes to, not the in the state that you work. Florida is a brilliant choice because there is no income tax. So even if you live in New York, you won't pay New York income taxes. I find it somewhat ironic that a telecommuter pays taxes in New York without actually living there whereas a Military officer would live there and not pay taxes.

    Caveat: This might have changed in the past 4 years, but I know in 2001, that's how it worked. The military has been, as of late, cracking down on people who claim non-tax states as their home while having no plans of ever actually living in that state or having any ties in that state.
    • by HardCase (14757) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @06:28PM (#13936168)
      Even more interesting, some states, including Idaho (my home state) do not tax income that is not made within the state. So, when I was stationed in Rhode Island and California, I did not pay income tax to either of those states. But since I did not make my money in Idaho, I didn't pay them, either.

      When I was in California between 1992 and 1996, the legislature passed a law defining what qualified a person as a resident of California. If I recall correctly, the criteria were any two of home ownership, driver's license and (I think) a certain time of continuous residence. The net result was that most military members would end up being California residents (according to California) and would have to pay income tax, even if their official state of residence was elsewhere (and where they were also paying income tax). The DoD pounced on that very quickly and it was successfully challenged in court.

      -h-
  • by b0bby (201198) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:46PM (#13935776) Homepage
    It's always been my impression that this type of thing wouldn't fly, that you were just taxed in the state you live in. For an example around me, DC would dearly love to tax commuters from MD & VA who pour into the city every day yet provide no direct taxes. Every time DC tries to implement such a commuter tax, they're shot down. I didn't realize that states could do this - I assumed that if you lived in CT and worked in Manhattan, all your income tax would go to CT. Guess I was wrong.
    • didn't you get that memo? all bets are off for DC... no congressional representation (you know what i mean), and your rinky-dink underemployeed population can pay for the landscaping, roads, and sewage/waste removal for tens of thousands of daily visitors... face it, DC is america's *real* armpit

      (is it a troll if it's true?)

    • I used to live in CT and work in Manhattan, and I paid taxes (on my full income) in both states. CT got first dibs - NY gave me a credit for the CT taxes I'd paid. I also had to pay NY city taxes. Many, many states work like this, especially the ones with high commuter populations - NYC even has it's own commuter tax for just this reason. No idea why DC can't get away with it - the people hit by the tax aren't the ones who get to vote on it, so they tend to pass pretty easy.
  • by sillybilly (668960) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:46PM (#13935777)
    Pennsylvania and Ohio have reciprocal tax agreements, where even if you telecommute, you pay your own resident state's taxes only. It's kind of neat, because less headaches for you. This is state tax only, you still have to look at local city taxes, depending on city you worked in.
  • by GlobalEcho (26240) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:48PM (#13935792)
    For companies that are either small enough to nimbly do so, or large enough to handle the red tape for a large number of employees, it seems the solution to this problem would be to create new corporate entities in each state containing some of their telecommuters. The telecommuters would then be made employees of their local corporate entities.

    That really screws the 10-500 employee businesses that make up the backbone of the US economy, of course. They have too much infrastructure to just go ahead and do this for the fairly nominal setup cost a small company would encounter, but too little to already be incorporated in multiple locations.
  • Soooo,that means if i lease time to clients in other states, thru a 3rd party hosting service, i might be hit up for taxes in 3 states?

    Great way to ruin an already hurting industry.

    Anyone in washington remember the golden goose story?
  • when I say to them "KISS MY ASS!!"
  • by Ryan Amos (16972) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:57PM (#13935884)
    The reason the Supreme Court probably refused to hear this case is specifically because there is legislation in the works to address the issue. They tend to let the legislative system work before rushing to judgement (there are exceptions; namely "political suicide" issues like abortion and gay rights which the legislators won't touch.)
  • Hmmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by porcupine8 (816071) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @05:57PM (#13935886) Journal
    My husband lived in NC for five years as a grad student, but his "legal residence" was in Colorado where his mom lives, for various reasons. He paid income tax both in NC and CO, even though he was only in CO once or twice a year to visit family - HOWEVER, both states let you deduct taxes paid to another state when you were figuring what you owed, so he didn't really wind up paying that much (if any) more than usual. (Aside from the fact that NC has a pretty high income tax.) I forget the exact way it works, but he definitely didn't have to pay full taxes to both states.

    Of course, if TN has no income tax, I guess there would be no credit for it on this guy's NY taxes. *shrug*

  • IANAA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fatmal (920123)
    IANAA (I am not an American), but didn't you guys have some kind of beef with 'Taxation without Repesentation?' Surely this is exactly what NY State is demanding?
  • by Thedalek (473015) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @06:01PM (#13935916)
    What exactly rises to the level of "You worked in state X and must pay taxes?" Is it the location of the business? If so, why aren't we all paying taxes to the location of the home office of whatever company we work for? Is it the location of the services rendered? If so, then why aren't we paying taxes for each state of customer calls? Or should we be paying taxes for everywhere in the world when the services are on a globally accessable web site?

    This opens a great big mess-o-worms.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @07:11PM (#13936590)
    may be doubly taxed if both have income tax

    First, this is wrong. The states may fight over who gets to tax him, but in the end he'll only pay taxes to one state. (Yes, my wife is and accountant.) You are able to deduct taxes you pay in one state against taxes owed in another state.

    Second, if he's paying taxes to NY he ought to be demanding the right to vote there. It's taxation without representation (and the right to vote against people who impose such taxes) otherwise!

    Now that would make a great Supreme Court case. The guaranteed right to vote in any state that collects anything above a certain percentage of your income in taxes.

    Third, I wonder if that includes City and Burough taxes in NYC?

% A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back the when it begins to rain. -- Robert Frost

Working...