I'm thinking NY where the branch resides, would be the most fair for the States. So, as an IC I guess you would have to file in NY for income tax, and in CT for residency taxes. CT would complain, and I guess you would also rather that CT get the funds, but because of the article, we are thinking in terms of fairness to the States.
Then, I've also heard talk of doing away with all that and collecting national sales taxes from the seller at the POS. Will likely end up as some combination/compromise between the two down the road. As for CT's sales tax law, there is a remote possibility they could police that if they were working together with the IRS. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:48 PM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: (NY) Court rules telecommuter must pay taxes I probably wouldn't be affected by this type of law, since I am just an "outsourced service" for my clients, not an actual employee. Clients don't take any taxes out of my pay; I'm stuck paying them all myself. On a tangent... Connecticut does (or did) have a law like this applying to sales tax. If you buy something via mail order, you are still obligated to pay Connecticut sales tax for it. Of course, I have no idea how (or if) they are policing that. Who shows up at HR block w/ receipts of things they need to pay tax on? Income tax would be much easier to police and collect, I imagine. All that said, I'd prefer that my income tax go to "better" the town / state I live than the place where the company who hires me exists. If the main office is in New Jersey, a branch office is in NY, and a telecommuter is in Tennessee, I wonder who can claim the income tax? At 01:33 PM 3/30/2005, you wrote: >As far as I can tell, so long as an individual is not double-taxed, there >should be no problem with this. Seems only fair that the State the employer >resides in should collect taxes for, indirectly, providing the work. The >State the worker resides in should have a right to collect property and >related taxes; but if they did not, indirectly, provide the source of >income, they should not be able to claim income taxes. > >States should legislate in such a way that they are good places to live AND >good places to operate industry. "Economic justice" and a level playing >field in the marketplace is maybe the best way to achieve this. Now, if this >could be translated into international law... but I digress. > >Anyway, if individuals ARE double-taxed, then this would be going against >the undeniable trend of distributed commerce, and would not hold up in the >long-run. In the short run, our economy would suffer the set-back for a poor >choice. The question is, do we as a country really want to behave >economically like a pre-EU Europe, or are we faster than that? -Louis > >Louis Mezo >LogicSynthesis >Tel: 240.498.8951 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.logicsynthesis.com > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adrian Breeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:52 PM >To: CF-Jobs-Talk >Subject: Re: (NY) Court rules telecommuter must pay taxes > > >Mis-pasted: > > > > > Court rules telecommuter must pay taxes > > http://tinyurl.com/4993u > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:11:2366 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/11 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:11 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.11 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
