Albany, not judges, must decide remote work tax rule, court says

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to receive this weekday newsletter.

Hey y’all, it’s Tim, filling in for Dan.

Kicking things off, I’ve got bad tax news for remote New York workers who don’t live in the state. An appeals court decision said its up to lawmakers and state tax officials to fix New York’s long-standing tax rule.

In election news, labor unions are lining up behind Hochul. However, there’s a catch.

We’ve also got some noteworthy proposed regulations, including one that could put a strain on New York’s already high cost of living.

Given America’s upcoming 250th anniversary, I thought I’d share something from my notebook about an interesting spat between Assemblywoman Mary Beth Walsh and Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow, the chamber’s Ways and Means chair, over funding.

Speaking of the Revolution, This Week in New York History’s got the story of a woman who disguised herself as a man to fight in the war. Multiple times.

P.S. A quick programming note: We’re off Friday for the holiday. See you Monday!

A state appeals court on Thursday sent a clear message to remote workers: if you work for a New Yorker employer, but don’t live in the state, you may still owe state income taxes. 

The Appellate Division’s Third Department unanimously upheld New York’s longstanding “convenience of the employer” rule, which applies to income earned and taxed while working remotely for a New York-based employer.

The justices rejected a challenge from Edward Zelinsky, a professor at Cardozo Law School in Manhattan who lives in Connecticut. He argued that pandemic-era work-from-home orders should have changed the equation. The court said the pandemic may have forced employees out of the office, but it didn’t change the legal test.