Loved this comment
> Gee, and to think we were wondering what businesses could do to create jobs?
Clearly, the answer is "what can government do to stop holding back job creation?"
The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
41–50 of 60 posts
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#42Discovery (DISCA) faced this issue in 2008 and decided to lay off all employees who lived in a state with this tax nexus law (I was one of them). There were a total of three employees in my state, but there were probably scores of employees around the country. They probably saved several million dollars annually in sales tax by doing this (back of the envelope calculations). A handful of the employees affected in my…
A handful of the employees affected in my group were re-hired as contractors. Those states are going to have a field-day in the event of an audit. We had a ton of trouble recently with a contractor (who worked on his own time, with his own equipment, for a specific duration on a project)... I can only imagine what states will see when they find out they brought back former employees. It's going to be very difficult t…
Can you clarify what state and what kind of trouble you had with the contractor? Were they contracting through a corp/LLC?
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#43It's really not that big a deal. At Stack Exchange I think we have employees in eight different states now, all individuals working from home. It's a lot of paperwork but not disproportional to the amount of paperwork you have to do per-employee anyway. It does cost something to deal with but it's a rounding error compared to the cost of those people's salaries. It is by no means a reason not to hire people who work…
This concerns me:
"...states could still make a case for taxing the former employer."
That makes it sound like if My Company in my state has any interaction with Your Company in your state, both of our states can suddenly make a case that we're both doing business in both states and they'd try to hold us responsible for additional tax.
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, wouldn't that also mean that on days that you commute to work you're paying income tax in MA plus the above-average NH property tax?
NH property taxes aren't significantly higher than they would be for similar homes in similar towns in MA. And yes, if you work in MA and live in NH, you pay MA income tax. Also, if you live in MA and work in NH, you pay MA income tax.
Oddly, though, if you live in MA and work in MA, it turns out that you have to pay NH income tax.
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#45I was wondering something similar but for countries. Say that I work for my own company developing iphone apps or something like that. Now I like to travel around so I go to the US and work from there, could it be problematic?
I shouldn't be a problem, as long as all you're doing is writing code while you're here ... you're not using a US phone number on your site or listing a US address as your business address etc ... It really shouldn't be a problem, but I'm not a lawyer
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#46The moral of the story is: don't have employees. Have contractors.
Good luck with that. The IRS has very specific rules for who can be considered an employee and who can be considered a contractor. Attempting to treat people who should be employees as contractors is one of their number one enforcement goals, because contractors don't have withholding and are therefore far less likely to pay their taxes.
Meh, I think it requires a truly different relationship but it can totally work if both sides are mature about it. Usually though, the contractor gets lazy or the employer wants more control. Then you have no choice but to make them an employees so you can direct them.
Edit: just read your top-voted post. If you can swing it, definitely go for it. I just think it is way too much paperwork and a bootstrapped startup probably couldn't afford it.
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#47The moral of the story is: don't have employees. Have contractors.
Good luck with that. The IRS has very specific rules for who can be considered an employee and who can be considered a contractor. Attempting to treat people who should be employees as contractors is one of their number one enforcement goals, because contractors don't have withholding and are therefore far less likely to pay their taxes.
The IRS has very specific rules for who can be considered an employee and who can be considered a contractor
Actually the IRS has very vague and inconsistent rules about who can be considered an employee or a contractor. Look them up and manufacture facts and documentation to stay as far on the right side as you can.
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#48That's one way to stop outsourcing...
That's one way to stop outsourcing...
Only in the sense that it's a giant incentive to outsource all your work overseas where this kind of trauma will never pop up to destroy your business.
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#49Also, I spend most of the day wearing just a dressing gown and if I have to appear on a webcam for some kind of chat or conference, I smear the lens with vaseline and hold up a little doll of myself dressed smartly that I made, wiggling it whenever I'm speaking.
This comes at enormous cost to my dignity.
Re: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but say you're a manager of BigSouthAmericanCorp (maybe Euro/Asian, etc, your mileage may vary) going to a meeting with BigAmericanCorp. Then you can use the Business visa, which is the same as Tourism visa. As long as you're not working for an American employee, it's OK to be in US on work temporarily. So if I were going to US to work on my own business temporarily, I'd either go as a tourist or say, "Oh, I'm…
First, you are confusing visas. The tourist visa is not the same as the visa waiver. There is a tourist visa, it's called B-2 and it does not allow you to do any business or work. Visiting with the visa waiver program means visiting without a visa. Next, for short trips, visiting without a visa is equivalent to having a business visa (B-1). It allows you to meet with US clients, customers, partners, and so on and it…
Exactly. There's a fine line between a business trip, and something that requires a work visa.
I'd imagine that the best way for a foreigner to work in the US on non-US projects is if a body-shop (possibly owned by them - I think most people can own a US company) hires them, then subcontracts them out to the offshore employer. The question is how they get everything set up while they don't have a work visa. I wonder if a business visa would allow them to set the paperwork up? Anyway, it's madness.