Rewrite the entire article provided by the user:
The increasing popularity of telecommuting during the pandemic has sparked a debate over whether New York-based company employees who work from home should still have to pay personal income tax in their state, as opposed to where they actually reside. Both Connecticut and New Jersey are losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars annually due to this policy known as “convenience of the employer rule,” which requires commuters working for companies based outside their states but within a reasonable distance to continue paying taxes to that state if they work remotely from home. While neighboring states such as Connecticut and New Jersey have implemented measures like retaliatory tax rules against remote workers employed by New York-based businesses, these policies do not make up the difference in lost revenue for them compared with actual out of towners living or working further afield within this borderline zone who continue to pay taxes where they actually reside. To combat this issue, both Connecticut and New Jersey are now offering state tax credits to residents successfully appealing their New York income tax assessment while working from home during the pandemic period (2020-23). As of July 2021, one winning litigant in New Jersey has claimed a rebate worth approximately half the amount refunded for any NYC taxes paid. Another resident, Open Weaver Banks, an attorney who prefers working from home to commuting into Manhattan due to its “awful” nature, is also pursuing this measure while urging others to follow suit. The situation calls New York State Department of Taxation memoranda suggesting what circumstances require exemption or not in such a case (for instance: specialised tracks for testing new cars may qualify if they cannot be replicated elsewhere; however, scientific equipment set up at home could still attract taxes even though it is duplicable over the border). While New York should have relaxed these requirements during 2020 when working habits were transformed by pandemic-related circumstances according to Banks’ viewpoint, she asserts that they failed to do so. The states of Connecticut and New Jersey are now seeking a complete reversal in this policy through legal challenges before the US Supreme Court; however, it may be challenging given previous rejections from similar cases (such as when New Hampshire attempted to sue Massachusetts for temporarily collecting income tax during pandemic-related remote working). Both Connecticut’s Governor Ned Lamont and Jeffrey Beckham, Secretary of State Budget Office in Connecticut have also expressed their belief that this policy is an “unconstitutional overreach” by the state of New York. Nonetheless, experts such as Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law professor Edward Zelinsky believe that eventually, a suitable litigant will challenge it before the right court. Although tax laws in states like Arkansas, Delaware and Nebraska also resemble those imposed by New York, Pennsylvania has an income tax reciprocity agreement with both Connecticut and New Jersey to offset some of these costs. Nonetheless, former NJ State Senator Steven Oroho expressed doubts over New Jersey’s level of commitment regarding this matter given that the financial burden for a potentially lengthy legal challenge falls on individual taxpayers rather than being taken up by state authorities themselves.
Leave a Reply