Discussion:Online education "Nexus"
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 04:30, 10 October 2009 KatieJ (Talk | contribs) (p.s. Except for) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:56, 10 October 2009 Diego (Talk | contribs) (Thank you very m) Next diff → |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=KatieJ|Date=10 October 2009|Text=p.s. Except for California, of course <G>.}} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=KatieJ|Date=10 October 2009|Text=p.s. Except for California, of course <G>.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Diego|Date=10 October 2009|Text=Thank you very much. My concern is that the intitutions issue W2's indicating the state wages and the respective states but we will cross that hurdle if it arrives I guess. | ||
| + | |||
| + | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:56, 10 October 2009
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Online education "Nexus"
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Online education "Nexus"
| 9 October 2009 | |
| Client teaches at 13 different universities throughout the country. He does this from his desk in California. What is the position with filing in the various states. Any suggestions would be appreciated. | |
| October 9, 2009 | |
| None if he never leaves his desk. Some states might disagree, but generally there must be physical presence. | |
| 9 October 2009 | |
| Physical presence isn't necessarily required to create nexus for a business. See, e.g., Lanco, Inc. v Div. Of Taxation, New Jersey Superior Court, A.D. No A-3285-03T1 (2005), affirmed NJ Supreme Court, 188 NJ 380 (2006), cert. den. U.S. Supreme Ct. No. 06-1236 (2007) (Lane Bryant's Delaware trade mark/trade name licensing subsidiary had nexus with NJ); Tax Comm'r v. MBNA America Bank, West Virginia Supreme Court, 640 SE2d 226 (2006), cert. den. U.S. Supreme Ct. No. 06-1228 (2007) (nexus found for out-of-state financial services company through substantial in-state receipts from credit card customers). However, I've never yet heard of a case where a state asserted jurisdiction to tax an individual who had no property and had never set foot there. As states move toward assigning sales of services to the sales factor numerator of the state where the benefit of the service is enjoyed (e.g., California effective in 2011), though, I won't be surprised if states start asserting economic nexus with individual service providers.
For now, though, I don't think any state will assert jurisdiction over Diego's client. | |
| 10 October 2009 | |
| Thank you very much. My concern is that the intitutions issue W2's indicating the state wages and the respective states but we will cross that hurdle if it arrives I guess. | |
