Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Remote Work Yields Savings, But Watch for Tax and Jurisdiction Issues
The pandemic helped to usher in a new wave of remote working — and given the rise of the Omicron variant, that wave seems unlikely to crest any time soon. While the rapid ascent of home offices may have initially come as a shock to more than a few corporate cultures, the truth is that business leaders who embrace long-term remote working can yield significant cost savings and boost employee morale. But first they need to strategize around any number of complex regulatory and compliance issues that can impact everything from business taxes to worker compensation — and often come as a not-so-pleasant surprise to employers without an in-house HR department.
Avoiding those conversations altogether may not be an option. Roughly four million Americans were already working from home well before COVID-19 forced businesses to close their office doors, and many more could be unwilling to return to a cubicle once the public health crisis has subsided. Making a conscious choice to lean into remote working could not only help organizations mitigate employee turnover, but also grant hiring managers access to a wider talent pool no longer constrained by geography — not to mention the savings on overhead costs like office space.
Tax Considerations
That doesn't mean it will be easy. For starters, the ability to hire remote employees based in other states triggers a slew of challenging tax questions that will likely seem familiar to law firms or companies that are either located near state borders, have experience expanding into new states, or have employees who travel to job sites in other states. The "physical presence" rule dictates that employees pay taxes to the state in which their work is performed. For instance, if a company's head office is in State A but it has remote employee working from home in State B, it would be required to withhold unemployment and state taxes in State B, even if the business doesn't maintain a physical branch office there.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?