¹ See International Telework Association and Council, 2003–2004 American Interactive Con Summer Survey (The Dieringer Research Group, Inc., 9/2/04), at www.workingfromanywhere.org/news/pr090204.htm.

² See, e.g., NJ Stat. Ann. Sec. 27:26A-15, et seq.

³ See General Accounting Office Report, Telecommuting: Overview of Potential Barriers Facing Employers (GAO-01-926, July 2001).

⁴ See Edward Zelinsky v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of NY, 1 NY3d 85 (2003), cert. den., Brief of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (filed 3/16/04) (thousands of Connecticut residents are burdened with double taxation as the result of New York’s “unconstitutional [i.e., convenience-of-employer] method” of apportionment of their income).

⁵ Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 US 340, 344–345 (1954).

⁶ See Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992).

⁷ See In the Matter of Orvis Co., Inc. v. NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal, 86 NY2d 165 (1995),  cert. den. (while a vendor’s physical presence is required, it need not be substantial; rather, it must be more than a slightest presence and may be manifested by the presence in the taxing state of a vendor’s property or the conduct of economic activities in the taxing state by the vendor’s personnel or on its behalf).

⁸ See Wisconsin Dep’t of Rev. v. William Wrigley Jr., Co., 505 US 214 (1992).

⁹ See id.

¹⁰ See, e.g., 20 NYCRR 1-3.4(b)(9)(iv).

¹¹ See, e.g., CA Rev. & Tax Code 23101.5; NYS Dep’t of Tax. and Fin., Op. of Counsel, No. 96-27937 (10/3/96); and MI Dep’t of Treas., Rev. Admin. Bull. 1998-1 (2/24/98) (setting forth guidelines as to when nexus will be established for Single Business Tax purposes under the Due Process and Commerce Clauses, and providing examples of protected activities (e.g., meeting with in-state suppliers for less than 10 days a year)).

¹² See, e.g., CT Gen. Stat. 12-704(a) and CT Agencies Regs. Sec. 12-705(a)-2(a).

¹³ 20 NYCRR 132.18. Three other states employ a convenience/necessity test; see NE Admin. R. & Regs. 22-003.01C(1), NJ Letter to CCH (March 2004), and PA Code 109.8.

¹⁴ See Matter of Thomas L. Huckaby v. NYS Div. of  Tax Apps., NY Ct. of Apps., 3/29/05.

¹⁵ See, e.g., NY Tax Law 651(a)(3) (income from New York sources is more than the standard deduction).

¹⁶ See, e.g., NJ Rev. Stat. 54A:7-1(a) (employers maintaining an office or transacting business in the state and making a wage payment subject to New Jersey personal income tax to a resident or nonresident individual must withhold taxes).

¹⁷ For example, South Carolina defines an employer subject to withholding as one that pays $800 or more per tax year; see SC Code Ann. 12-8-520.

¹⁸ For example, NYS Dep’t of Tax. and Fin., Income/Franchise Tax—District Office Audit Manual, Withholding Tax Field Audit Guidelines (7/1/04), provide a 14-day de minimis rule, under which withholding is not required on wages paid to certain employees assigned to work primarily outside the state who perform in-state services for no more than 14 days during the calendar year. The 14-day rule does not apply to nonresident athletes or entertainers or to payments of deferred compensation or nonstatutory stock options. Individuals should note that the limits on withholding do not limit liability for New York taxes owed on wages earned in the state.

¹⁹ IL DOR, Gen’l Info. Ltr. ST 99-0184-GIL (5/25/99).

²⁰ CA State Bd. of Equalization, Sales Tax Counsel Ruling No. 220.0256 (6/21/99).

²¹ Tennessee DOR, Letter Ruling 97-04 (2/19/97).

²² National Nexus Program Bulletin 95-1 (12/20/95).

²³ See Manual of State Employment Security Legislation, compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration Unemployment Insurance Service (revised 1950 and reissued August 1970), section 2(k)(2) and (3).

²⁴ H 5067, introduced by Rep. Christopher Shays (R–CT) (9/13/04); S 2785, introduced by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D–CT) and co-sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D–CT) (9/9/04).