3 ms·

IANAL but my understanding is that companies have to register to do business in each state that they want to employ remote workers in. So if you're a Texas res

IANAL but my understanding is that companies have to register to do business in each state that they want to employ remote workers in. So if you're a Texas resident, the CA company would have had to register in Texas to have you on payroll, and that relationship would be governed by Texas law. Of course if you kept your driver's license in CA and just happen to physically be in Texas without telling your employer that, then it'd be CA.

paulcole 5y ago
> So if you're a Texas resident, the CA company would have had to register in Texas to have you on payroll, and that relationship would be governed by Texas law. I don’t think this is fully correct. My understanding is that it’s about where the work is being done, not the residency. For example, many businesses in Portland, OR employ residents of Vancouver, WA (right across the river). When COVID hit and those WA residents became remote employees, many Portland businesses had to become registered in WA because that is now where they had employees located.
- runbathtime 5y ago
  I'm confused by unemployment. Doesn't the company essentially pay it? The employee also gets taxed when their paycheck is deducted for unemployment insurance every month. Did they get this money back if they never use it? We know the state gov is involved somehow, because they extended programs, but how? I can't figure out if it is the company, yourself or the state, or a mix of all three involved in unemployment. And does it make sense to use the state you physically live in or the state where the company is? I think with remote work and different states offering different amounts, this can all be gamed for maximum benefits.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    Think about it in the sense of where you earned the money. If you live in Washington but physically work in Oregon, you’re earning money (and paying income tax) in Oregon. You’re only eligible to apply for unemployment in states where you worked and meet the eligibility criteria. So in that case, no matter what bonuses WA is offering, you only paid into the OR system so that’s the one you’re eligible for. There’s no “shopping around” because (for the most part) you’re only working in and paying into the system of a single state. This link might help: https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-unemployment-insurance https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-unemployment-i...
- awb 5y ago
  INAL, but when I ran a remote company I had to register my business in the state my employees lived in and pay unemployment tax in their individual home states. If my employees worked outside of their home state (nomadically) then I think the states they travelled to technically want a share of that income, but that it's the employee's responsibility to report that income as being earned in that state, not the employers. The employer continues to pay W2 wages + unemployment tax or 1099 income in the employee's state of residence until the employee changes their residency status. In practice however, nomadic income only typically gets reported for high income employees like professional sports players or entertainers who earn large amounts of publicly identifiable income in different states throughout the year. For an employee to file for unemployment in a state, they would first need to show residency in that state. For example, you can't pass through CA for a week and file for unemployment there.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > If my employees worked outside of their home state (nomadically) then I think the states they travelled to technically want a share of that income There’s a bit more to it than that. An employee doing work in a location is a possible back door way of establishing nexus in that state for the business. Amazon, for example, knew they had a target on their back so forbid employees from even turning computers on in some states.

paulcole 5y ago

> So if you're a Texas resident, the CA company would have had to register in Texas to have you on payroll, and that relationship would be governed by Texas law. I don’t think this is fully correct. My understanding is that it’s about where the work is being done, not the residency. For example, many businesses in Portland, OR employ residents of Vancouver, WA (right across the river). When COVID hit and those WA residents became remote employees, many Portland businesses had to become registered in WA because that is now where they had employees located.

runbathtime 5y ago
I'm confused by unemployment. Doesn't the company essentially pay it? The employee also gets taxed when their paycheck is deducted for unemployment insurance every month. Did they get this money back if they never use it? We know the state gov is involved somehow, because they extended programs, but how? I can't figure out if it is the company, yourself or the state, or a mix of all three involved in unemployment. And does it make sense to use the state you physically live in or the state where the company is? I think with remote work and different states offering different amounts, this can all be gamed for maximum benefits.
- paulcole 5y ago
  Think about it in the sense of where you earned the money. If you live in Washington but physically work in Oregon, you’re earning money (and paying income tax) in Oregon. You’re only eligible to apply for unemployment in states where you worked and meet the eligibility criteria. So in that case, no matter what bonuses WA is offering, you only paid into the OR system so that’s the one you’re eligible for. There’s no “shopping around” because (for the most part) you’re only working in and paying into the system of a single state. This link might help: https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-unemployment-insurance https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-unemployment-i...
awb 5y ago
INAL, but when I ran a remote company I had to register my business in the state my employees lived in and pay unemployment tax in their individual home states. If my employees worked outside of their home state (nomadically) then I think the states they travelled to technically want a share of that income, but that it's the employee's responsibility to report that income as being earned in that state, not the employers. The employer continues to pay W2 wages + unemployment tax or 1099 income in the employee's state of residence until the employee changes their residency status. In practice however, nomadic income only typically gets reported for high income employees like professional sports players or entertainers who earn large amounts of publicly identifiable income in different states throughout the year. For an employee to file for unemployment in a state, they would first need to show residency in that state. For example, you can't pass through CA for a week and file for unemployment there.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > If my employees worked outside of their home state (nomadically) then I think the states they travelled to technically want a share of that income There’s a bit more to it than that. An employee doing work in a location is a possible back door way of establishing nexus in that state for the business. Amazon, for example, knew they had a target on their back so forbid employees from even turning computers on in some states.