|
OUT-OF-STATE TELECOMMUTERS: ASSESSING THE RISK
By: Charles F. Knapp
Faegre & Benson, LLP
© 1999 Faegre & Benson
The existence of out-of-state telecommuters poses a number of interesting legal issues for employers,
particularly employers who do not otherwise employ workers in other states. Employers who allow such
arrangements may unknowingly expose their company to additional employment and tax law obligations.
Virtually every state has a number of employment law statutes that prohibit certain conduct and impose special
obligations on employers, including but not limited to non-discrimination statutes, leave laws, employees rights
laws (e.g., drug testing, monitoring, and background investigations), workers' compensation statutes, and
unemployment compensation statutes.Whether these statutes apply to employers whose only
contact with the state is that they have one or more employees telecommuting from residences in that state
will depend on the specific statutory definitions. As a general rule, however, employers should assume that
allowing an employee to telecommute from another state on a full-time basis will subject those employers to the
employment law statutes of the other state with respect to the telecommuting employee. Therefore, for example, an
employee telecommuting from her home in Chevy Chase, Maryland may have different leave of absence rights than
her co-workers officing out of the employer's Arlington, Virginia corporate headquarters.
In addition to statutory law, states also have their own body of court-created law (or “common law”) that impose
varying rights and obligations regarding a variety of employment law issues, such as whether employees may
be discharged “at will,” whether employees have a right to privacy, and circumstances under which a non competition
agreement will be legally enforceable. While I am not aware of any reported decisions directly addressing this
issue, related case law suggests that courts will hold employers to the common law standards developed in the
state in which an employee telecommutes on a full-time basis. Therefore, for example, a Spokane, Washington
employer employing a home-based telecommuter from Helena, Montana may be surprised to know that although
Washington courts have adopted the doctrine of “at-will employment,” Montana common law provides that
employees are presumed hired for the length of term for which the employee's wages are calculated.
Another important issue regarding out-of-state telecommuters is whether employing an out-of-state
telecommuter will subject an employer to the corporate income tax of the telecommuter's home state. The answer
to this question will depend on each state's tax code and regulations. While federal law places some restrictions on
a state's ability to levy corporate income taxes on out-of-state businesses (e.g., states may not imposes
such taxes on businesses selling tangible personal property if the only activity of that business is the
solicitation of orders by its salespersons), these restrictions do not prohibit states from imposing taxes on
companies who employ production, administrative or executive employees in another state. Most states will
impose corporate income taxes on businesses that have a sufficient “nexus” with that state. Whether the existence
of telecommuting employees establishes sufficient “nexus” will depend on the statutory definitions of “nexus”
and the specific work performed by the telecommuting employee(s).
For example, Wisconsin law provides that the following will constitute sufficient “nexus” to subject an out-of-state
corporation to Wisconsin corporate income tax:
(1) “maintenance of a business location in Wisconsin, including any kind of office;”
(2) “usual or frequent activity in Wisconsin by employees . . . soliciting orders with
authority to accept them;”
(3) “usual or frequent activity in Wisconsin by employees . . . engaged in purchasing
activity or in the performance of services;”
(4) “miscellaneous other activities by employees . . . in Wisconsin such as credit investigations,
collection of delinquent accounts, conducting training classes or seminars for customer personnel
in the operation, repair and maintenance of the [business's] products;” and
(5) “leasing of tangible property and licensing of intangible rights for use in Wisconsin.”
Based upon this statutory provision, it is easy to conceive of telecommuting
scenarios that may subject a Minnesota employer with an employee telecommuting in Wisconsin
to Wisconsin corporate income tax. For example, if the telecommuter works with equipment leased
by the employer, performs purchasing duties, is engaged in telemarketing or other
sales activity with the authority to accept orders, or performs consulting or other services to the business's
clients from the home office, it would appear that the “nexus” requirement has been met. In addition, it is
possible that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue may consider a home office used by a full-time telecommuter
as “any kind of office” maintained in the State of Wisconsin.
For all of the above reasons, employers should carefully consider all of the potential legal consequences before
allowing an out-of-state employee to telecommute from home.
Charles F. Knapp
Faegre & Benson, LLP
2200 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
direct dial: 612/336-3442
facsimile: 612/336-3026
|