Your Employer’s Payroll State Can Contradict Your Domicile

The email goes out in the first week. New address, effective date, please update my state for payroll. Sometimes HR changes it and sometimes HR says the company is not registered in your new state, or that the role is coded to the New York office, or that the change has to wait for the next open enrollment. In January the W-2 arrives with New York in box 15, the full salary in box 16, and a year of New York withholding in box 17, and the person who moved in March is holding a federal wage statement that says, in the only place a state ever looks, that they earned all of it in a state they left.

The reflex is to treat this as a clerical failure. Get the W-2 corrected, get the withholding fixed, and the problem goes away. That reflex is half right and half dangerous, and the two halves point in opposite directions.

The half that is right: payroll withholding is not a residency determination. Your employer is not the arbiter of your domicile, a payroll system’s state code is not evidence of where you live in any legal sense, and a wrong code can be unwound on a return without anyone’s permission.

The half that is dangerous: in New York, New Jersey, and a handful of other states, a W-2 that sources every day to the employer’s state may not be wrong at all. It may be exactly what the law requires, no matter where your laptop actually sat, because of a rule that has been on the books since long before anyone worked from home on purpose. Fixing the paperwork does not fix that. Nothing fixes that except changing the facts underneath it.

This is informational and is not legal or tax advice. Wage sourcing turns on your own employment facts, and small differences in those facts change the answer. Work through them with a qualified CPA or tax attorney.

Almost every version of this problem comes from collapsing two separate questions into one document.

The first question is where you are a resident. That is decided by your domicile and, in states with a statutory residency test, by your day count and your abode. Under New York Tax Law section 605(b)(1)(B), a nondomiciliary is taxed as a resident on worldwide income only if they maintain a permanent place of abode in the state for substantially all of the year and spend more than 183 days there. Your employer has no role in that determination at all.

The second question is where your wages are sourced. That is decided by the sourcing rules of the state where your employer’s office sits, and it applies to you as a nonresident regardless of how clean your move was. A person can be a flawless, unimpeachable Texas domiciliary and still owe New York tax on every dollar of a New York salary.

The W-2 answers the second question, badly, and people read it as an answer to the first. Worse, the same document then gets read backward by an auditor in the state you left, which is the part of this that actually costs money. Those are the two separate exposures this article takes in order: what the sourcing rule does to your wages, and what your payroll record does to your domicile case.

The operative language is one sentence in a regulation written for traveling salesmen, and it has swallowed remote work whole.

New York’s personal income tax regulation at 20 NYCRR 132.18(a) allocates a nonresident employee’s compensation by the ratio of working days in New York to total working days, and then adds the sentence that matters: "any allowance claimed for days worked outside New York State must be based upon the performance of services which of necessity, as distinguished from convenience, obligate the employee to out-of-state duties in the service of his employer." The same provision closes off the obvious workaround in advance, stating that in making the allocation "no account is taken of nonworking days, including Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, days of absence because of illness or personal injury, vacation, or leave with or without pay." Weekend days spent at your new address do not dilute the ratio, because they never entered it.

The Department’s instructions for Form IT-203-B put the test in plainer words. Any allowance for days worked outside the state must rest on services that, because of the necessity of the employer, obligate the employee to out-of-state duties, and "such duties are those which, by their very nature, cannot be performed at the employer’s place of business." Read that clause slowly, because it is the whole rule. Not duties you prefer to perform elsewhere. Not duties you were permitted to perform elsewhere. Duties that cannot be performed at the office.

A laptop job fails that test by construction. The work can obviously be done at the office; the office is where it was done last year. That is why the rule is so hard to beat and why it has almost nothing to do with whether your move was real.

One narrowing detail is worth knowing before you assume the worst. The rule only reaches you if your assigned or primary work location is a New York office. Technical Services Bureau Memorandum TSB-M-06(5)I is explicit that if the employee’s assigned or primary location is at an established office of the employer outside New York, then any normal work day worked at home is treated as a day worked outside New York State. If your employer genuinely reassigned you to a Dallas or Miami office, the convenience rule is not your problem. If your employer left you assigned to the New York desk and simply stopped caring where you sat, it is.

TSB-M-06(5)I, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2006, is the one published route out. For a taxpayer whose assigned or primary office is in New York, a normal work day at a home office counts as a day worked outside the state if that home office qualifies as a bona fide employer office. The memorandum lays out three tiers of factors and a scoring rule: the office must meet either the primary factor, or at least 4 of the 6 secondary factors and 3 of the 10 other factors.

The primary factor is a single sentence, and it disqualifies most knowledge work immediately: "The home office contains or is near specialized facilities." The memorandum’s own illustration is an employee whose duties require a test track to test new cars, unavailable at the employer’s New York City offices but available near the employee’s home. It then supplies the counterexample in the same paragraph. If the duties require specialized scientific equipment that is set up at the employee’s home but "could physically be set up at the employer’s place of business located in New York, then the home office would not meet this factor." Portability defeats it. A monitor, a desk, and a fast connection are portable.

The six secondary factors are more reachable but rarely add up: the home office is a requirement or condition of employment; the employer has a bona fide business purpose for that location; the employee performs some core duties there; the employee meets clients, patients, or customers there on a regular and continuous basis; the employer does not provide designated office space or other regular work accommodations at one of its regular places of business; and the employer reimburses substantially all home office expenses, which the memorandum defines as 80 percent or more, and also furnishes or reimburses substantially all supplies and equipment.

The ten other factors are administrative and mostly outside an employee’s control: a separate employer telephone line and listing for the home office, the home address and phone number on the employer’s letterhead or business cards, an area of the home used exclusively for the employer’s business and separate from the living area, inventory of the employer’s products kept there, the employer’s business records stored there, a sign indicating a place of business of the employer, employer advertising showing the home office as one of its locations, business insurance or a business rider on the homeowner’s policy, a claimed federal home office deduction, and the employee not being an officer of the company.

Look at that list as a whole and the design intent is unmistakable. The state is not asking whether you really moved. It is asking whether your employer established something that looks like an actual office in the other state, at the employer’s initiative and the employer’s expense, with the employer’s name on it. Almost nobody who simply relocated during a remote-friendly year has that.

The strongest possible version of the taxpayer’s argument was tried recently, by a tax law professor, on facts that looked unbeatable, and it lost.

Edward Zelinsky is a Connecticut resident and a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Manhattan. He litigated the convenience rule to the New York Court of Appeals once already and lost, in Matter of Zelinsky v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 1 NY3d 85 (2003), cert denied 541 US 1009 (2004). He came back for tax years 2019 and 2020.

The 2019 year was a rerun of his old facts. His original return reported his entire Cardozo salary of $244,871 as New York source income. On an amended return filed September 25, 2020, he cut the New York figure to $90,602 and the income percentage from 55.41 percent to 20.50 percent, reporting on Form IT-203-B that he commuted into Manhattan 84 days and worked the remaining 143 days at home in Connecticut on legal scholarship and administrative tasks. He claimed a $10,615 refund. The Division did not respond, which operates as a denial.

The 2020 year was different, and it is why the case matters. He commuted into Cardozo three days a week from January 21 until March 15, 2020. Then Executive Order 202.6 directed that all businesses and not-for-profit entities in the state "shall utilize, to the maximum extent possible, any telecommuting or work from home procedures that they can safely utilize," and Executive Order 202.8 amended it to require each employer to reduce its in-person workforce "by 100% no later than March 22 at 8 pm." Cardozo closed its doors to all in-person activity on March 16 and, from that date through December 31, he worked exclusively at his Connecticut home and never physically came into New York to work. He did not have a classroom or an office available to him at the Manhattan campus for that entire period.

He had reported the full 2020 salary of $251,925 as New York source and paid $15,839 in New York tax. The amended return allocated $24,185 to New York, an income percentage of 7.03 percent rather than 73.27 percent, and requested a $14,319 refund. The Division sent a Request for Information stating the rule in one line that every remote worker should read: "days you telecommuted from a location outside New York State are considered New York State work days unless your employer has established a bona fide employer office at your telecommuting location." It asked for his federal W-2 for each employer and a completed income allocation questionnaire, Form AU-262.55. He answered that for 2020 he had 231 working days, 207 of them worked at home in Connecticut, leaving 24 days worked at Cardozo. On September 17, 2021, the Division allowed $1,326.35 of the refund and denied the remaining $12,992.65.

The Tax Appeals Tribunal affirmed the denial on May 15, 2025. It held that "Cardozo’s allowing its employees to work from home, wherever that may have been, does not constitute its own necessity to have those job functions performed in those places," and framed the governing question as "whether the employer established a nexus in another jurisdiction by directing its employee to perform personal services in that out-of-state location for its own necessity." Because the professor had not shown that Cardozo required him to work at his home in Connecticut "as opposed to anywhere else," the convenience rule applied.

Sit with the shape of that holding. A government order closed the building. There was no office to go to. And the reason it did not matter is that the employer never directed the work to Connecticut specifically. Being sent home is not the same as being sent to a place. If a mandatory statewide shutdown does not create employer necessity, a policy that says work from wherever you like certainly does not.

The Tribunal was working from settled ground, not writing new law. Matter of Tuohy, decided February 13, 2003, held that a taxpayer’s out-of-state work was for his own convenience despite his not being provided office space. Matter of Unterweiser, July 31, 2003, reached the same result where the employee’s services "were substantially the same after her office at her New York-based employer was no longer available." Matter of Phillips, 267 AD2d 927 (3d Dept 1999), lv denied 94 NY2d 763 (2000), held that having to perform duties outside normal office hours was not employer necessity. The taxpayer wins in this line of cases look like Matter of Fass, 68 AD2d 977 (3d Dept 1979), affd 50 NY2d 932 (1980), where a New Jersey editor needed specialized facilities installed at his home and farm to test the products he wrote about, and unlike Matter of Kitman, 92 AD2d 1018 (3d Dept 1983), lv denied 59 NY2d 603 (1983), where televisions installed at an out-of-state home were held not to be specialized equipment.

Matter of Colleary is the closest thing to a warning label. The taxpayer worked two days a week at his employer’s New York place of business and three days in New Jersey writing television scripts. His employer maintained no office for him in New York and it made no difference to the employer where the writing happened. He still lost, because the court would not bifurcate one employment relationship into two, and because indifference on the employer’s part is not necessity.

Most people first hear about the convenience rule in its softest form: yes, two states tax the same wages, but you get a credit at home, so the net cost is small. That framing quietly assumes you moved to a state with an income tax. The people this rule actually ruins are the ones who did not.

Matter of Huckaby v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, 4 NY3d 427, decided March 29, 2005, is the case. Thomas Huckaby lived in Tennessee and worked for an employer in Jamaica, New York, in 1994 and 1995. He filed New York nonresident returns allocating his income by days, reporting 56 New York work days in 1994 and 62 in 1995, roughly a quarter of his time, and paying New York tax on roughly a quarter of his salary. The Court of Appeals held, 4 to 3, that New York could apply the convenience rule to tax all of it. As the Tribunal later summarized the doctrine, quoting Huckaby at 437, the convenience test "stands for the proposition that New York will not tax a nonresident’s income derived from a New York employer’s participation in interstate commerce because in such a case the nonresident’s income would not be derived from a New York source."

Tennessee had no tax on wages. There was no home-state liability for a credit to offset, so the credit theory that makes this rule sound survivable simply did not exist. The New York tax on days worked in Tennessee was a pure, unrecoverable cost.

That is the exact structural position of anyone moving from New York to Florida or moving from New York to Texas who keeps the same New York employer and the same New York desk assignment. Our Florida and Texas research puts both states at 1 out of 5 on exit stickiness and 1 out of 5 on audit aggressiveness, and that is exactly the problem here: neither state will tax you, so neither state can credit you. The savings people model when they compare a 0 percent state against New York’s rates only materialize if the wages actually stop being New York source income. If your assignment did not move, they may not have. Running the residency savings and exposure calculator against both scenarios, wages resourced and wages not resourced, is the difference between a projected outcome and a wish.

The corridor across the Hudson used to be the easy one. It is not anymore, and the change is recent enough that plenty of payroll departments have not caught up.

P.L. 2023, c.125, enacted July 21, 2023 and retroactive to January 1, 2023, gave New Jersey its own convenience of the employer test. It is deliberately reciprocal: where a nonresident’s home state applies a convenience rule to income sourced to an employer’s location, New Jersey imposes a similar New Jersey sourcing rule on that nonresident’s compensation from a New Jersey employer for services performed outside New Jersey that the employer did not require to be performed outside New Jersey. The Division of Taxation’s guidance names the affected residents plainly: Delaware, Nebraska, and New York. Pennsylvania residents are outside it because of the reciprocal agreement between the two states. The Division told employers to begin withholding or making estimated payments for 2023 as soon as possible, with tax due by April 15, 2024, and waived penalties and interest for compliance by September 15, 2023.

So a New York resident who telecommutes for a New Jersey employer is now in the position New Jersey residents have complained about for decades. That is the fact pattern most people moving from New York to New Jersey get wrong in the opposite direction as well: crossing the river changes which state runs the rule against you, not whether one does.

Two other provisions of the same law are worth knowing because they tell you how seriously the state takes this. Section 3 creates a credit for a New Jersey resident who paid tax to another state on income from services rendered in New Jersey, was denied a refund by that state, and then successfully appealed to a tax court or tribunal, in an amount equal to 50 percent of the additional New Jersey tax owed as a result of readjusting the other state’s credit. New Jersey is, in effect, offering to split the upside with any resident willing to go fight New York. Section 4 created a pilot grant program at the Economic Development Authority for businesses with at least 25 employees that reassign New Jersey residents from out-of-state locations to New Jersey locations, worth the New Jersey gross income tax withholdings of the reassigned resident employees or $500,000, whichever is less, capped at $35 million in any state fiscal year, with applications due by July 1, 2028. That second one is the tell. The state is paying employers to change the assigned work location, because the assigned work location is what actually controls the sourcing.

The credit that is supposed to make double taxation survivable has a definition problem, and it runs against remote workers specifically.

For New York residents, 20 NYCRR 120.4(d) defines income "derived from sources within another state" for resident credit purposes by reference to the New York source income definition in Tax Law section 631. In other words, New York decides whether the other state’s tax was on the right kind of income using New York’s own nonresident sourcing rules, not the other state’s. New York’s Nonresident Audit Guidelines work through the consequence in two examples. A resident who paid Missouri tax on a distributive share of dividend and interest income from a Missouri resident trust was denied the credit, on the reasoning that since a nonresident of New York would not be taxable on that trust income, neither should a resident be allowed the credit. Advisory Opinion TSB-A-02(4)I denied a credit to a New York domiciliary who won a jackpot at an Atlantic City casino and paid New Jersey tax on it, because the winnings were not derived from sources within New Jersey within the meaning of the regulation.

The guidelines are equally clear about the easy cases: "wages earned for services performed in New Jersey" would likely qualify for the credit. Note the phrase. Services performed in New Jersey. A New York resident sitting at a desk in Brooklyn, whose New Jersey employer sources those wages to New Jersey under New Jersey’s new convenience rule, is not performing services in New Jersey by New York’s definition. That is precisely the gap the credit was never designed to close, and it is why the crediting mechanism cannot be assumed to neutralize a convenience-rule assessment in either direction. Model the exposure before you rely on it, and get the answer from a practitioner who handles the specific pair of states you sit between.

Everything above is about wage sourcing, which is a nonresident issue. The second exposure is worse, because it goes to whether you succeeded in leaving at all.

New York’s Nonresident Audit Guidelines analyze domicile through five primary factors, and one of them is Active Business Involvement, defined as "the individual’s pattern of employment, as it relates to compensation derived by the taxpayer in the particular year being reviewed," along with active participation in a New York trade, business, occupation, or profession. This is not a tiebreaker factor. In Matter of Herbert L. Kartiganer, 194 AD2d 879, a taxpayer claiming a change of domicile to Florida kept a proprietary interest in his New York engineering firm and stayed in constant contact with the Orange County office by telephone and courier. The administrative law judge, discussing the 115 days per year he worked outside New York, observed that "even the work performed in Florida was on behalf of his New York employer, the engineering firm which bears his name," and concluded that his active involvement in New York business interests was "of far greater significance" than the formal declarations of Florida domicile. In Matter of Richard E. & Jean M. Gray, 235 AD2d 641, the court quoted the taxpayer describing himself as "deeply, deeply involved" in his New York manufacturing corporation and held he had not abandoned his New York domicile until the business was sold.

Now put the payroll record next to that. The guidelines instruct auditors, in the pre-audit review, to note New York addresses on the return, observing that "the W-2 or IT-2 form may reveal that it was sent to the taxpayer’s New York address," and to analyze business relations, where "the W-2 or IT-2 form may reveal a relationship between the employer and the employee." The standard domicile questionnaire reproduced in the guidelines asks, for the entire audit period, for the employer’s name, address, and federal employer identification number, and then asks whether the taxpayer was associated with any other New York business activities.

The burden makes this expensive. Under Bodfish v. Gallman, the evidence to effect a change of domicile must be clear and convincing, and the burden sits on the party asserting the change, which is you. Our New York residency guide rates the state 5 out of 5 on both exit stickiness and audit aggressiveness, and its enforcement list runs from cell phone location records and E-ZPass tolls to utility bills and neighbor tips. A payroll record naming a New York work location for every pay period of the year you say you left is not the strongest fact in that file, but it is the cheapest one for an auditor to pull, and it is the one you handed them yourself.

None of that means a New York-coded W-2 defeats a genuine move. Kartiganer lost on control and day-to-day involvement, not on a box on a wage statement, and the guidelines caution that Active Business Involvement is only one factor among five. It means the payroll record is a fact you will be asked to explain, so you want the explanation to be documented at the time rather than reconstructed later.

The practical answer is that you do not need your employer’s cooperation to file correctly. You need it to reduce the friction, and those are different things.

File the certificate. New York Form IT-2104.1, the Certificate of Nonresidence and Allocation of Withholding Tax, is the form the withholding system is built around. You certify that you are not a resident of New York State, New York City, or Yonkers, and you state the estimated percentage of your services during the year that will be performed within each. The employer side of the form is directive: the employer must withhold the applicable amount from wages, or from the percentage of wages shown, for employees who file it, and must keep it available for inspection by the Tax Department. Two obligations ride along with it. You must notify your employer within 10 days if you become a resident or substantially change the percentage, and a penalty of $500 may be imposed for furnishing false information that decreases withholding. Do not use this form to claim a percentage the convenience rule will not support.

Ask for the correction in writing, then stop waiting for it. A corrected wage statement is cleaner than an explanation, but the return does the real work either way, and a refund claim does not depend on the employer agreeing with you. Keep the request and the response; a written refusal from HR is itself a useful record of when you told them and what you told them.

Allocate on the return. A nonresident files Form IT-203 and allocates wages on the Form IT-203-B schedule, using working days rather than calendar days. Expect the allocation questionnaire, Form AU-262.55, and expect the Division to ask for the federal W-2 for each employer, exactly as it did in the Zelinsky matter. Build the day record contemporaneously, because that questionnaire asks for working days, non-working days, and days worked at each location, and answering it from memory in year three is how a defensible allocation becomes an indefensible one.

Fix the assignment, not the code. This is the only step that changes the outcome rather than documenting it. The sourcing follows the assigned or primary work location, so the durable versions are an actual reassignment to an employer office outside New York, or facts that satisfy the bona fide employer office test, in writing, at the time. An offer letter or an amended agreement naming the new work location, a written reassignment memo, an employer-established office in the new state, and reimbursement of home office expenses at or above the 80 percent threshold are the artifacts that matter. A verbal understanding that nobody minds where you work is, on this record, the definition of convenience.

Separate the two clocks. Whether you owe New York on your wages and whether you are still a New York domiciliary are different fights with different evidence, and treating them as one is how people concede the second while arguing the first. You may owe wage tax to a state you genuinely no longer live in. Saying so plainly, and documenting the domicile change independently of the payroll record, is a better posture than a filing position that implicitly claims the move fixed everything.

The Mobility Map records days and nights by state as they happen, which is the raw material both fights run on: the statutory residency count in the state you left, and the working-day allocation on a nonresident return. Evidence Vault holds the documents that decide the sourcing question rather than the day question, including the offer letter or reassignment memo naming your work location, the IT-2104.1 you filed and the date you filed it, the written request to change your payroll state and the response, home office reimbursement records, and each year’s W-2. AuditIQ surfaces retained former-state ties that keep generating records in a state with a claim on you, and a payroll record naming a former-state work location is one of them. Advisor sharing lets a CPA or tax attorney review the employment chronology and the underlying documents directly, which matters here because the wage sourcing question and the domicile question often need different answers in the same year.

ResidencyIQ organizes records and highlights potential exposure factors. It is not a law firm or an accounting firm and does not provide legal or tax advice; work with a qualified CPA or tax attorney on your own domicile, wage sourcing, filings, and state exposure.

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, TSB-M-06(5)I, "New York Tax Treatment of Nonresidents and Part-Year Residents Application of the Convenience of the Employer Test to Telecommuters and Others" (May 15, 2006), is the source of the quoted 20 NYCRR 132.18(a) allocation language and its necessity-as-distinguished-from-convenience sentence, the quoted treatment of nonworking days, the quoted Form IT-203-B instruction that qualifying duties are those which "by their very nature, cannot be performed at the employer’s place of business," the rule that a home office counts as outside New York where the assigned or primary location is an established employer office outside the state, the effective date of tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2006, the definition of a normal work day, the bona fide employer office scoring rule of the primary factor or 4 of 6 secondary factors and 3 of 10 other factors, the quoted primary factor and its test-track and portable-equipment examples, and the full text of the secondary and other factors including the 80 percent reimbursement threshold: https://tax.ny.gov/pdf/memos/income/m06_5i.pdf.

Matter of Edward A. and Doris Zelinsky, New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, DTA Nos. 830517 and 830681 (Decision, May 15, 2025), is the source of the 2019 and 2020 facts and figures, including the $244,871 and $251,925 Cardozo salaries, the $15,839 of 2020 New York tax paid, the $10,615 and $14,319 refund claims, the 55.41 percent to 20.50 percent and 73.27 percent to 7.03 percent income percentage changes, the 84 commuting days and 143 out-of-state days for 2019, the 231 working days and 207 Connecticut days for 2020, the September 17, 2021 account adjustment notice allowing $1,326.35 and denying $12,992.65, the quoted Executive Order 202.6 and 202.8 language and the March 16, 2020 Cardozo closure, the quoted Request for Information language on telecommuting days and bona fide employer offices, Form AU-262.55, the quoted holdings on Cardozo’s permission not constituting necessity and on employer-directed nexus, and the discussions of Matter of Fass, Matter of Kitman, Matter of Wheeler, Matter of Phillips, Matter of Tuohy, Matter of Unterweiser, and Matter of Colleary: https://www.dta.ny.gov/pdf/decisions/830517_%20830681.dec.pdf. The 2003 Court of Appeals decision is Matter of Zelinsky v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 1 NY3d 85 (2003), cert denied 541 US 1009 (2004): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2003/2003-18774.html.

Matter of Thomas L. Huckaby v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Trib., 4 NY3d 427 (2005 NY Slip Op 02413, decided March 29, 2005), is the source of the Tennessee residence and Jamaica, New York employer, the 1994 and 1995 tax years, the 56 and 62 New York work days, and the 4 to 3 split: https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0051.htm. The quoted passage at 437 on the convenience test and interstate commerce is quoted in the Zelinsky Tribunal decision above.

New York State Form IT-2104.1 (12/24), New York State, City of New York, and City of Yonkers Certificate of Nonresidence and Allocation of Withholding Tax, is the source of the certification and percentage-of-services structure, the 10-day notification requirement, the $500 penalty for furnishing false information that decreases withholding, and the quoted employer instruction to withhold and to keep the certificate available for inspection: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/current_forms/it/it2104_1_fill_in.pdf.

New Jersey P.L. 2023, c.125 (A4694), enacted July 21, 2023, is the source of the reciprocal convenience of the employer sourcing provision, the section 3 credit equal to 50 percent of the New Jersey tax owed on readjustment for residents who successfully appeal another state’s denial, and the section 4 Economic Development Authority pilot grant program for businesses with at least 25 employees, its $500,000 per-business and $35,000,000 annual caps, and the July 1, 2028 application deadline: https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2022/AL23/125_.HTM. The New Jersey Division of Taxation’s guidance is the source of the January 1, 2023 retroactive effective date, the application to Delaware, Nebraska, and New York residents, the Pennsylvania reciprocal-agreement exclusion, and the withholding and estimated payment instructions including the September 15, 2023 penalty and interest waiver: https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/conveniencerule.shtml and https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/conveniencerulefaq.shtml.

New York’s Nonresident Audit Guidelines (December 2021) are the source of the Active Business Involvement primary factor and its quoted "pattern of employment" definition, the Matter of Kartiganer discussion including the quoted "even the work performed in Florida was on behalf of his New York employer" and "of far greater significance" passages and the 115 out-of-state work days, the Matter of Gray discussion and the quoted "deeply, deeply involved" testimony, the quoted pre-audit instructions on the W-2 or IT-2 form revealing a New York address and revealing a relationship between employer and employee, the domicile questionnaire items requesting employer name, address, and EIN, the clear and convincing burden of proof under Bodfish v. Gallman, and the resident credit discussion including 20 NYCRR 120.4(d), Tax Law section 631, the Missouri trust example, Advisory Opinion TSB-A-02(4)I on the Atlantic City winnings, and the quoted "wages earned for services performed in New Jersey" example: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2021/misc/nonresident-audit-guidelines-2021.pdf.

The residency tests, day-count thresholds, audit aggressiveness and exit stickiness ratings, and enforcement method lists cited here come from ResidencyIQ’s own dossier research, with underlying citations on the New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas residency guides. That research is also the source of New York Tax Law section 605(b)(1)(B) and its two-prong statutory residency test.