Seth Breidbart wrote:

- quote -

I had forgotten I had much the same situtation. I lived and
worked in AZ for a few years. When I lost my job, I moved
to CA (to a home I already own). I had initially filed with
the AZ unemployment office, but I refiled in CA as an
interstate claim. Payments were continued at the same rate
as determined by AZ, and my job search reporting was to AZ,
but some paperwork was filed in CA.

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

L K Williams wrote:
- quote -

And if the employer paid in erroneously - i.e. to the wrong
state? I am of the opinion that the mere payment doesn't
create the legal obligation to pay out....

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

L K Williams wrote:

- quote -

Interesting question. However, I don't see the employer's
failure to pay the tax (if properly owing) as grounds to
deny the dismissed employee benefits. That sort of situation
happens all the time with misclassified employees that were
treated as IC's by the employer (and not safe-harbored).

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

- quote -

I'm not so sure. If you teach a series of courses where as a
matter of conveneince you can do so remotely that's OK.

If your teaching assignement is such that the University can
make other assignments, and they chose to do so, say several
which require your actual presence in the classroom and
present it in those terms, I would see it not as a
termination.

Another example would be your current supervisor allows
staff to telecommute with only periodic attendance at the
home office (In such a situation in NY you would be deemed
NY based even if you showed up there 1 x a decade) OK, the
next supervisor comes in and says all his staff must show up
for Modnay AM and Wednesday PM staff meetings. You decline
to show up. I would not see the change in supervisory
outlook as a termination.

I can think of one odd situation, a major Philadelphia
employer allows, by union contract, a portion of its staff
to work outside the City and report only as needed into CC
offices, thus saving the employee about 5% pro rata in city
taxes (Unlike NYC) If the next supervisor requires all his
or her staff to report daily I suppose itis first of all a
union grievance! (Some chose to live 100 miles away--report
in person only rarely.)

In the odd case of NY, its sort of like if assigned to NY
you are there even if you are not there but its unclear if
she paid NY taxes. If she was subject to NY taxes, whether
she paid them or not, and she was offered a similar position
at the same NY site or close to it then I would argue that
she was not terminated.

If she was paid off site and NOT subject to NY taxes but
paid taxes in FL and she was not offered similar work in FL
but rather in someplace 100's of miles away I would argue
she was terminated.

If she was being cute and didn't pay wage/UC taxes in either
state but sort of looked like an IC then I would say she had
unclean hands.

I agree under the commerce clause logic, if she paid UC
somewhere then she is entitled to UC that somewhere if her
job was eliminated there and no replacement offered there.
And I see the vast grey area of question as to if assigned
out of NY but actually in FL when my NY job is phased out or
changed where am I.

If FL ws not at the employers request and they did not pay
to move her there then I suspect they have every right to
offer her another NY job, whether or not she relocates or
merely choses to commute up daily is up to her.

But I'm no lawyer.

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

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:

- quote -

First, I will admit I have not been following this thread.
However, it seems that one issue has not been addressed;
that is, which state collected the unemployment tax paid
by Reuters? If Florida did not receive this tax, why should
they be required to pay benefits?

--
L K Williams, C P A
Nawarat, Williams & Co
Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans

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

This incident is not sitting well with the current Florida
administration. It took place in early 1999 just as the
current administration was taking over. All decisions
were made by in-place civil service employees.

A Florida official told me the following:
1. Reuters argued:
a) Ms. Allen's position remained in the New York office,
b) at her request, she was allowed to work off-site at
a place of her choosing (not by employer assignment),
c) when her position was no longer needed, she was
offered another position,
d) she formally resigned; and
e) Reuters did not terminate her.
2. An employer's directive of "relocate or resign" should
generally be interpreted as a termination if relocation
is rejected.

My analogy of this situation is that the University assigns
me to teach all web-based courses. So I move back to the
Promised Land of North Carolina and do everything from my
home. After five years, the University outsources web-based
courses to a contractor and tells me to return to Maryland
or resign. I resign. Am I eligible for unemployment
benefits in North Carolina?

It's an interesting question. One insight is that I should
have done nothing and force the termination. But, either
way, the answer should be "yes".

Ms. Allen has been quoted as saying she does not intend to
appeal to the federal courts because she does not know now
to do so. Hopefully someone will do it on her behalf for
the simple reason that it comes under the Commerce clause.

Dick

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