Bove, this could send a very harsh message to many other companies which are headquartered in Philadelphia, New York and Delaware that have a single worker in New Jersey.
The article explains how the scenario of business laws has to undergo change since telecommuting emerged as a plausible form of employment for many, especially after the recession. However, the ambiguity that exists in the case of telecommuting and the taxes that are to be levied on the basis of it, addressed by the state of New Jersey, may prove detrimental to the current work arrangements set by many international companies. The best thing about telecommuting had been the fact that companies could employ people working from a place where it does not have to open an office. In cases where a single telecommuter works for a company as mentioned above, the state’s law would mean a huge loss for the company, and a threat of losing the job for the employee. The financial issues involved in the case puts both the customer and the employee at high risk, since both had to compromise a lot for a plausible work arrangement.
Ms Thirumalai follows all the employment rules which involves forty hours work per week, travel at her own expense to Rockville twice a year, and use a laptop which she bought with her own money, instead of the one the company provides for the employees who work from their office. The legal case came into existence when the company acknowledged the work arrangement and the state demanded the company file tax on grounds that it maintained an office in the sate. The company refused to do this and moved to court. The Presiding Judge Patrick DeAlmeida explained how the idea of doing business is defined expansively, and the excuse that there is only one employer in New Jersey does not change the court’s conclusion which favored the state’s decision. The situation has fired up public debate through media channels and newspapers, and the company’s decision is