Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

Because they're not applying their own law in a proper manner....

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <stu[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

The $64,000 question. I'm sure like most state related
issues these days, budgetary issues might have played a
part.

--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109

Postings here are general information only and not to be
relied upon as advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

I disagree. It is the elimination of her current job
position that qualifies her. The fact that the employer
offered her a different job at a different location is not
relevant.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <stu[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

Surely you don't think that decision had any basis in logic
do you? I'm not exactly known for my kindness and
generosity and even I don't agree with FL on this one.

--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109

Postings here are general information only and not to be
relied upon as advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

A.G. Kalman" <agk202[at]netscape.net> wrote:
- quote -

To those who responded:
Unfortunately, one does not have access to the FL rulings. Based
on the information available, it certainly appears as though this
individual worked in FL and should be eligible for UI benefits if
her separation was voluntary. Somehow, FL determined that her
separation was not "involuntary" under FL labor law.

Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

kurtullman[at]yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) blurted out

- quote -

Yeah, but they said her refusal to take a job 1000 miles
away from her husband was a voluntary leaving of employment,
disqualifying her from collecting.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

A.G. Kalman wrote:

- quote -

I haven't read the article, but it seems as if the employer
did away with her job position, so how is that a voluntary
resignation? It doesn't matter that they offered her a
different job.

- quote -

That only proves that the states can be as laimbrained as
certain other federal agencies we're used to....

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

ronnirubin[at]sprintmail.com (Arthur L. Rubin) wrote:
- quote -

There is no individual income tax in FL. If she performed
any of her services in NY, ALL of her earnings would have
been subject to NY income tax, which should have been
withheld. If she never went to NY, she would have no income
tax withholding.

- quote -

It sounds as though she was covered in FL, which would be
the right answer under the Uniform Unemployment Insurance
Code. There is a statutory process for determining where an
employee is covered for unemployment insurance purposes, the
purpose of which is to provide the coverage at the place
where the employee would most likely claim benefits if he or
she were to become unemployed.

(1) An employee who performs all of his or her services
within a single state is covered in that state. (2) If the
employee performs some of the services in another state, but
that portion of the service is incidental to the portion
performed in the primary state, the latter is the state for
coverage. (3) If the employee performs services in two or
more states and the services performed out of state are not
incidental, then the employee is reported to the state where
his or her base of operations is located. The base of
operations is the place where the employee reports to
receive instructions, pick up supplies and equipment, etc.
(4) If the base of operations is not located in a state
where any part of the service is performed, then the
employee is reported to the state from which his or her
services are directed and controlled; and if THAT is not a
state where any part of the services are performed, then the
final default is to (5) the state of the employee's
residence.

Note that it would be entirely possible for all of the OP's
salary to be subject to New York State income tax, because
she performed part of her services there (and worked in FL
for the convenience of herself and/or her employer, not out
of necessity), but for her to be covered for unemployment
purposes to FL under (2) above.

- quote -

Yes. All states have similar unemployment insurance rules
because they have to meet the federal FUTA requirements.
There are some differences but the main structure is the
same.

Frankly, I don't think she ever had a prayer with NY. Her
claim is with FL and I am surprised that refusal to relocate
would disqualify her.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"A.G. Kalman" <agk202[at]netscape.net> wrote:
- quote -

Seems to me then that she got screwed by Florida, should
have focused her efforts there, and instead tried to screw
New York. Imagine though, Florida telling her to go after
New York. What were they thinking?

--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109

Postings here are general information only and not to be
relied upon as advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin[at]sprintmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Well FL doesn't have an income tax so if there was any tax
return sent to FL, it would have been only for SUTA.

--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109

Postings here are general information only and not to be
relied upon as advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Let's see if I understand this one: "We are closing our
operations at your work location, but we have a job for
you in our office 1000 miles away. If you do fail to
relocate we will classify you as a voluntary separation
and you will not be eligible for unemployment benefits."

Better yet: "Yes, your employer paid unemployment taxes
in Florida, but we'd rather not pay you any benefits. Try
New York: they'll pay you more than we would."

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods, EA" <d.woods[at]verizon.net> wrote:

- quote -

Since my previous post I had a chance to read the actual
decision. It seems she filed in FL and was approved for
benefits by the DOL. Her employer objected by stating that
her separation was not involuntary. A FL claims adjudicator
agreed with the employer and reversed the decision. She
appealed and a FL appeals referee ruled against her. It was
FL that advised her to file in NY. She filed in NY and lied
on her claim by stating that she actually worked in NY. She
later claimed that this was unintended.

To make a long story short her claim was rejected; on appeal
it was reversed; on appeal it was reversed; (the score at
this point is NY 2, T/P 1) finally the Court of Appeals
ruled that the last decison was correct. She was not
employed in NY. Final score: NY 3 T/P 1. In addition, she
had to pay back any benefits received as she had made a
false statement of fact and she had to pay court costs.

Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Dave Woods, EA" <d.woods[at]verizon.net> wrote:

- quote -

Actually a couple more questions come to MY mind based
on the facts listed in the story....

3) Which state received the state income tax withholding?
(Should have been FL, but the company may not have had a FL
tax ID.)

4) To which state were the state employment tax returns sent?
(Dave's point 2 suggests FL, but it's not clear?)

And -- a related tax question for telecommuting EMPLOYERS:

Is the company required to get a FL tax ID in order to file
FL employment returns? (I've only been associated with
employment tax returns in CA, but I assume most states
have similar employment taxes.)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Dave Woods, EA" <d.woods[at]verizon.net> wrote:

- quote -

In most states, voluntarily QUITTING your job forfeits any
unemployment rights you might have had. If she did not
physically work or pay taxes in New York, I see no claim for
unemployment benefits from NY.

Alternately, if she was really just an independent
contractor, she did not have unemployment rights in any
state. She paid no FUTA taxes for her work.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Dave Woods, EA" <d.woods[at]verizon.net> blurted out

- quote -

They said her job was terminated, and she was offered
another position in NY. Is that voluntary? In California
I've seen people get unemployment when they quit because
their spouse is being transferred. Keeping a family
together isn't considered a voluntary dismissal.

But what would George Bush do?

- quote -

Were unemployment insurance payments withheld from her
salary and paid to the State of New York? If so, I think
their decision (I have not read the opinion, so I reserve
final judgment until I do so) is wrong.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods, EA" <d.woods[at]verizon.net> wrote:

- quote -

I believe that for unemployment benefit purposes, her separation
from Reuters is not considered voluntary. Reuters eliminated her
job position and offered her a new job that required her to
relocate. Her refusal to relocate does not in itself disqualify
her from unemployment benefits. FL denied her the benefits by
declaring that she was not employed in the State of Florida. I
think she may have a better case appealing the FL decision.

The article (I saw it in the LA Times with an AP byline) did not
say whether she was paying NY income taxes. As long as she never
stepped foot in NY, she would not be paying state income tax.
However, it would be interesting to see if the NY tax authorities
could tax her income, assuming she did visit NY on business,
while the NY labor department is denying her unemployment
benefits.

Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Reading on the web today, there was a story about how a
woman who worked in Florida and telecommuted to NY was
denied unemployment benefits in first Florida and then
New York after she quit her job.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...-regional-wire

Two things come to mind based on the facts listed in the story.

1) Florida denied her benefits because she quit her job
voluntarily. I don't know what Florida law is, but if
its like most states, that seems proper assuming their
interpretation of events is right (I wouldn't agree with
their assessment).

2) Now NY is also declining benefits because they say she
didn't work there. This wasn't mentioned in the story,
but I hope they don't try to tax her income because she
was a telecommuter since their basis for doing so would
be contrary to their position for denying her benefits.

Comments?

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->