7 ms·

Lack of physical presence should exempt you from prosecution from a states laws. They are of course free to capture anything that crosses their border, which

Lack of physical presence should exempt you from prosecution from a states laws. They are of course free to capture anything that crosses their border, which in this case ought to mean that your company won’t be able to send money to the state.

azernik 4y ago
An employee in a state is physical presence
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Current US employment and business laws are not set up well for remote work at all. Several states say different things about this, and there is probably going to be a reckoning on this subject soon.
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  I don’t think I should be physically present in the USA just because I transferred money to a USA citizen in exchange for services. However USA law defines this, I think is wrong. That’s what I’m saying. The USA is an outlier in many ways. It taxes it’s citizens outside of the country, forces awkward bilateral trade agreements , and is not at all harmonized with work laws of other countries. An office is a physical presence to me. A single person working from their own house is not.
Dangeranger 4y ago
Is the company not deriving value across the state border? Is the employee not being compensated across the state border?
- notch656a 4y ago
  The employee is deriving value across the border. The shop itself is in Illinois, where they derive value from bits and bytes within their state. Charge the employee with any tax crimes, not the company.
  - Dangeranger 4y ago
    Why would the company compensate an employee if that employee were not providing value back in return?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      The value is provided in Illinois, not California. The work is worth nothing to the shop in Illinois while it is in California. The employee shipped the bits to Illinois, blame them for shipping the bits to Illinois. Compensation was provided for the bits in Illinois, not the bits in California. Why would the Illinois company pay for bits locked inside California that they can't access.
      - Dangeranger 4y ago
        The value to the consumer was provided by the company in Illinois, the value to the company was provided by an employee residing in California. Why would the intellectual property the employee generated be worth nothing simply by originating in California? In other words, if a bottle manufacturer in Illinois sourced raw glass pellets from a plant they owned in California, they would be deriving value from a source in California. The glass is not worthless because it hasn’t been converted into bottles yet. The employee is providing intellectual property across state lines, which is why the state can enforce laws on that value that originated from within their jurisdiction.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >The value to the consumer was provided by the company in Illinois, the value to the company was provided by an employee residing in California. The value to the company was provided in Illinois, with bits inside of Illinois. The company doesn't value bits inside California that it cannot access. They compensated for bits they can actually access within Illinois. >Why would the intellectual property the employee generated be worth nothing simply by originating in California? It may be worth something to someone in California before it's exported, but that transaction never happened. In this case though the actual transaction took place in exchange for a product inside Illinois. >In other words, if a bottle manufacturer in Illinois sourced raw glass pellets from a plant they owned in California, they would be deriving value from a source in California. The glass is not worthless because it hasn’t been converted into bottles yet. This is actually a great example. I buy ammunition online from a company in Oklahoma, where all the business and employees of the ammunition company resides. Yet I pay sales tax here in <my state> based on recent court rulings regarding 'internet sales tax' which state the tax is where the transaction took place (/the finished product goes to), not where the company and/or workers physically resides. It wouldn't make sense at all for me to pay sales tax to Oklahoma, even though the ammunition and even all the physical presence was initially generated there. I pay sales tax where the transaction and actual value to me, the buyer of the goods, actually are. Using the same analogy from this court ruling, you would pay tax on the IP you bought in Illinois and not where it was initially produced California. >The employee is providing intellectual property across state lines, which is why the state can enforce laws on that value that originated from within their jurisdiction. The employer is buying IP within their state lines of Illinois. You may be arguing the 'employee' is actually misclassified and is an illegal exporter who is a business owner in California with an export and bit smuggling business. Go after this 'employee' (bit smuggler), not the person buying bits in Illinois.
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  In my comment, I was referring to the state as the entirety of the US , including California. But I suppose if your company already is in the USA, you should have to deal with the tar pit if it’s multiple jurisdictions. I hear people who WFH for NYC companies have to pay city tax even if they are in some other US state, so this is really no difference.

azernik 4y ago

An employee in a state is physical presence

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Current US employment and business laws are not set up well for remote work at all. Several states say different things about this, and there is probably going to be a reckoning on this subject soon.
dismantlethesun 4y ago
I don’t think I should be physically present in the USA just because I transferred money to a USA citizen in exchange for services. However USA law defines this, I think is wrong. That’s what I’m saying. The USA is an outlier in many ways. It taxes it’s citizens outside of the country, forces awkward bilateral trade agreements , and is not at all harmonized with work laws of other countries. An office is a physical presence to me. A single person working from their own house is not.

Dangeranger 4y ago

Is the company not deriving value across the state border? Is the employee not being compensated across the state border?

notch656a 4y ago
The employee is deriving value across the border. The shop itself is in Illinois, where they derive value from bits and bytes within their state. Charge the employee with any tax crimes, not the company.
- Dangeranger 4y ago
  Why would the company compensate an employee if that employee were not providing value back in return?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    The value is provided in Illinois, not California. The work is worth nothing to the shop in Illinois while it is in California. The employee shipped the bits to Illinois, blame them for shipping the bits to Illinois. Compensation was provided for the bits in Illinois, not the bits in California. Why would the Illinois company pay for bits locked inside California that they can't access.
    - Dangeranger 4y ago
      The value to the consumer was provided by the company in Illinois, the value to the company was provided by an employee residing in California. Why would the intellectual property the employee generated be worth nothing simply by originating in California? In other words, if a bottle manufacturer in Illinois sourced raw glass pellets from a plant they owned in California, they would be deriving value from a source in California. The glass is not worthless because it hasn’t been converted into bottles yet. The employee is providing intellectual property across state lines, which is why the state can enforce laws on that value that originated from within their jurisdiction.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        >The value to the consumer was provided by the company in Illinois, the value to the company was provided by an employee residing in California. The value to the company was provided in Illinois, with bits inside of Illinois. The company doesn't value bits inside California that it cannot access. They compensated for bits they can actually access within Illinois. >Why would the intellectual property the employee generated be worth nothing simply by originating in California? It may be worth something to someone in California before it's exported, but that transaction never happened. In this case though the actual transaction took place in exchange for a product inside Illinois. >In other words, if a bottle manufacturer in Illinois sourced raw glass pellets from a plant they owned in California, they would be deriving value from a source in California. The glass is not worthless because it hasn’t been converted into bottles yet. This is actually a great example. I buy ammunition online from a company in Oklahoma, where all the business and employees of the ammunition company resides. Yet I pay sales tax here in <my state> based on recent court rulings regarding 'internet sales tax' which state the tax is where the transaction took place (/the finished product goes to), not where the company and/or workers physically resides. It wouldn't make sense at all for me to pay sales tax to Oklahoma, even though the ammunition and even all the physical presence was initially generated there. I pay sales tax where the transaction and actual value to me, the buyer of the goods, actually are. Using the same analogy from this court ruling, you would pay tax on the IP you bought in Illinois and not where it was initially produced California. >The employee is providing intellectual property across state lines, which is why the state can enforce laws on that value that originated from within their jurisdiction. The employer is buying IP within their state lines of Illinois. You may be arguing the 'employee' is actually misclassified and is an illegal exporter who is a business owner in California with an export and bit smuggling business. Go after this 'employee' (bit smuggler), not the person buying bits in Illinois.
dismantlethesun 4y ago
In my comment, I was referring to the state as the entirety of the US , including California. But I suppose if your company already is in the USA, you should have to deal with the tar pit if it’s multiple jurisdictions. I hear people who WFH for NYC companies have to pay city tax even if they are in some other US state, so this is really no difference.