New York to New Jersey: The Convenience of the Employer Rule Explained

New York runs nine brackets from 4 percent to 10.9 percent. New Jersey runs seven from 1.4 percent to 10.75 percent. Put those two numbers side by side and this corridor looks like almost nothing, fifteen basis points at the top of a scale that most people never reach. That comparison is the reason the move gets analyzed badly.

The saving on this corridor is not the state rate. It is the New York City resident income tax, which runs to a top rate of 3.876 percent and which a nonresident of the city does not pay at all. New York City has not taxed the wages of nonresidents since the commuter tax was repealed effective July 1, 1999, and when the state tried to keep collecting it from out-of-state commuters while exempting its own residents, the Court of Appeals held that arrangement unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. So the person who moves from Brooklyn to Hoboken and keeps the same Midtown job stops paying the city tax on day one, keeps paying New York State, and picks up a New Jersey return that will mostly be washed out by a credit.

That is the real shape of the corridor, and it is why the rest of this article is about a single regulation. People moving from New York to New Jersey usually understand that they still owe New York on the days they physically work in Manhattan. What surprises them is that New York also taxes the days they work at the kitchen table in Montclair, and that this has survived three separate rounds of litigation, the most recent decided in July 2026.

Our New York residency guide rates the state 5 out of 5 on exit stickiness and 5 out of 5 on audit aggressiveness. Our New Jersey residency guide rates New Jersey 4 and 4, which is high for a destination state and is a fair warning that this corridor is aggressive on both ends. This article is informational and is not legal or tax advice; work through your own facts with a qualified CPA or tax attorney.

The rule lives at 20 NYCRR 132.18(a), and it starts from an ordinary allocation formula. A nonresident allocates compensation to New York in the proportion that total working days employed within New York State bears to total working days employed both within and without the state. Nothing controversial so far. That is how most states source wages.

The next sentence is the whole fight. 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 the employer. Read that as a default and the effect is clear. A day you spend working from New Jersey does not come out of the New York numerator because you were in New Jersey. It comes out only if you can show your employer needed the work done there.

The operative guidance is TSB-M-06(5)I, issued May 15, 2006 by the Office of Tax Policy Analysis, which replaced a vaguer standard with a factor test. It has a precondition that matters and gets skipped: the rule applies to a nonresident employee whose assigned or primary office, meaning the office from which they are supervised, is in New York. If your assigned office is in Newark and you happen to visit a New York client, the convenience rule is not what is taxing you.

Assuming a New York assigned office, a normal work day at the home office counts as a day worked outside New York only if that home office qualifies as a bona fide employer office. There is one primary factor: the employee’s duties require the use of special facilities that cannot be made available at the employer’s place of business, but those facilities are available at or near the employee’s home. Meet that and you are done. Almost nobody meets it, because it was written for a laboratory or a test facility, not for a spare bedroom with a second monitor.

Fail the primary factor and you need at least four of six secondary factors plus three of ten other factors. The six secondary factors are that the home office is a requirement or condition of employment, that the employer has a bona fide business purpose for the home office location, that the employee performs some of the core duties of employment at the home office, that the employee meets or deals with clients, patients or customers on a regular and continuous basis at the home office, that the employer does not provide the employee with designated office space or other regular work accommodations at one of its regular places of business, and that the employer reimburses the employee for home office expenses.

The ten other factors are the ones that read like a 2006 artifact, because they are one. A separate telephone line and listing for the home office. The home office address and phone number on business letterhead or business cards. A specific area used exclusively for business and separate from living areas. Inventory or samples kept at the home office where the employer sells products. Employer business records stored in the home office. A sign at the home office indicating a place of business. Employer advertisements showing the home office as a place of business. Business insurance or a business rider to homeowner insurance covering the home office. A federal home office expense deduction claimed by the employee. And the employee not being an officer of the company.

Notice what that list does to the ordinary Jersey City hybrid worker. They have a desk in Manhattan, so the fifth secondary factor fails. They work from home because they prefer to, so the first fails. Their employer does not reimburse the home office, so the sixth fails. That is three of six gone before anyone looks at the signage question. The test is not hard to fail. It is close to impossible to pass, which is the point of it.

The convenience rule has been attacked on constitutional grounds three times by taxpayers who lived a short drive from the New York line, and it has won every time.

The first is Matter of Huckaby v New York State Division of Tax Appeals, 4 NY3d 427, decided March 29, 2005 by a 5 to 2 Court of Appeals. Thomas Huckaby was a computer programmer living in Tennessee who worked for the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions in Jamaica, New York. He worked in New York roughly 25 percent of the time, 56 days in 1994 and 62 days in 1995, and New York taxed 100 percent of his salary for both years. The majority upheld it, reasoning that he had accepted employment from a New York employer while choosing to live nearly nine hundred miles away, and that taxing the full salary was rationally related to values connected with the state. Judge R.S. Smith dissented on the ground that only 25 percent of the income was New York source income and that a statute keyed to the employer’s location rather than the place of work failed the due process proportionality principle of Hans Rees’ Sons v North Carolina.

The second and third are the Zelinsky cases, and they are worth knowing in detail because the facts are the strongest a taxpayer is ever likely to have. Edward Zelinsky is a law professor at Cardozo who lives in Connecticut and taught three days a week in New York. He lost his first challenge in the Court of Appeals in 2003. He brought a second one built on the pandemic, when Executive Order made in-person work at the school unlawful and Cardozo closed its building, so that for an extended stretch there was no New York office for him to be convenient about avoiding.

The Tax Appeals Tribunal decided that case on May 15, 2025, DTA Nos. 830517 and 830681, and held for the Division. The Tribunal’s reasoning on the office closure is the sentence practitioners quote: Zelinsky had not demonstrated that Cardozo required him to perform the functions of his job at his home in Connecticut, as opposed to anywhere else. Working from home when the office is shut is still, on that reading, the employee’s own choice of where to work, because the employer specified only that the work be done, not that it be done in Connecticut. The Tribunal also rejected the due process argument, finding he had availed himself of New York’s economic market through his New York employer even while spending under 10 percent of his working days in the state, and rejected the dormant Commerce Clause argument on the ground that a rule applied uniformly by every state would not produce double taxation.

Zelinsky appealed, the Appellate Division, Third Department heard oral argument on June 1, 2026, and decided against him on July 2, 2026. The court held that Cardozo was indifferent to where he taught from remotely, and drew the distinction the whole case turns on: an order barring access to a workplace is not the same thing as an employer requiring work to be performed in a particular other state. On the constitutional questions the court held the dormant Commerce Clause was not implicated and that, even assuming it were, the entirety of his salary derived from his New York employment and the tax bore a rational relationship to New York. Notably, one judge at argument questioned the future viability of the convenience test in an era of routine remote work, which tells you where the pressure is, and it also tells you that the pressure has not yet produced a different result.

The practical reading for anyone planning this corridor in 2026 is narrow and firm. If a state executive order closing your employer’s office is not employer necessity, your own preference for a shorter commute is not going to be either.

New Jersey does not let its residents be taxed twice on the same dollars. A resident who pays income or wage tax to another jurisdiction claims a credit on Schedule NJ-COJ, filed with the NJ-1040, for each jurisdiction. That is the mechanism that keeps the New York commuter from paying two full income taxes, and it works.

It works for the taxpayer. It does not work for New Jersey, and the reason is the limit written into the credit. The credit cannot be more than the amount you would have paid if you had earned the income in New Jersey. New York State rates on a commuter’s wage income generally run at or above the New Jersey rates on the same income, so the credit almost always absorbs the entire New Jersey liability on the wages and stops there. The taxpayer is made whole. New Jersey collects close to nothing on the largest category of income its own residents earn.

The scale of that is the reason this corridor has become a political fight rather than a filing footnote. The Citizens Budget Commission reported that out-of-state taxpayers paid New York nearly 8.8 billion dollars in 2021, roughly 15 percent of the state’s total income tax revenue, of which 4.3 billion dollars came from New Jersey taxpayers and 1.5 billion from Connecticut taxpayers. Every dollar of that 4.3 billion is a dollar New Jersey credits away.

For an individual the consequence is quieter but still real. Your effective rate on wage income is set by New York, not by New Jersey, no matter how many days you spend in New Jersey, and no matter that New Jersey is where your children go to school and where your property tax bill comes from. The convenience rule is what makes that true for the remote days as well as the commuting days. Run the day-by-day allocation before you assume the credit will cover everything, because the credit is computed jurisdiction by jurisdiction on New Jersey’s own rate schedule. A day count checker is the right starting point, since on this corridor the allocation fraction is the entire calculation.

On July 21, 2023 New Jersey enacted P.L. 2023, c.125, retroactive to January 1, 2023. It is the most direct legislative response any state has made to New York’s convenience rule, and it has three separate pieces that do three different things.

The first is a convenience rule of New Jersey’s own, and it is deliberately reciprocal. If another state sources employee compensation to the employer’s location when services are performed out of state for the employee’s convenience, New Jersey will impose a similar New Jersey sourcing rule on that income. It reaches residents of the states that impose such a rule, currently Delaware, Nebraska and New York. Pennsylvania residents are excluded because of the separate Pennsylvania and New Jersey reciprocal agreement, and New Jersey’s guidance treats Connecticut’s rule as itself reciprocal. So this is not a rule New Jersey applies to everyone. It is a mirror pointed at New York.

The second is a grant program, NJ RISE, run by the Economic Development Authority. A business with 25 or more full-time employees that is principally located in another state can take a grant for reassigning its New Jersey resident employees to New Jersey locations. The grant equals the New Jersey Gross Income Tax withholdings from the reassigned employees or 500,000 dollars, whichever is less, and total grants are capped at 35 million dollars in any state fiscal year. Applications must be submitted by July 1, 2028. The theory is straightforward: if the assigned office moves to New Jersey, the convenience rule no longer has a New York assigned office to attach to.

The third is aimed at individuals and it is the one with a closing window. A New Jersey resident who obtains a final judgment from another state’s tax court resulting in a refund of tax on income earned in New Jersey receives a New Jersey gross income tax credit equal to 50 percent of the additional tax then owed to New Jersey. It applies to taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2020 but before January 1, 2024, which is to say the pandemic and immediate post-pandemic years. New Jersey is, in plain terms, paying its own residents to go sue New York, and sharing the upside with anyone who wins.

Set that against the Zelinsky record and be honest about the odds. Three constitutional challenges, three losses, the most recent in July 2026 on the best pandemic facts available. The 50 percent credit is real money and the window is specific, but it is a credit contingent on a final judgment, and no taxpayer has yet obtained one on these grounds.

Everything above concerns sourcing, which decides how much of your income New York taxes. There is a second test that decides whether New York taxes all of it, and on this corridor it is the one that turns a manageable situation into a catastrophic one.

Under Tax Law section 605(b)(1)(B), a person not domiciled in New York is taxed as a New York resident on worldwide income if they maintain a permanent place of abode in New York for substantially all of the taxable year and spend more than 183 days of the year in New York. Both prongs are required, and exactly 183 days does not trigger it. Since 2022 the Tax Department’s audit guidelines define substantially all of the taxable year as a period exceeding 10 months, down from 11.

The day count is where a New Jersey commuter is uniquely exposed. Under 20 NYCRR 105.20, presence in New York for any part of a calendar day is a full day, with narrow exceptions for someone in the state solely for medical treatment or solely passing through to somewhere outside it. A commuter who is in Manhattan four days a week for forty-six weeks has already passed 183 without a single overnight stay. The day count prong is not a risk for this corridor. It is a near certainty.

Which means the entire question is the abode prong, and that is where two decisions, both involving New Jersey domiciliaries, changed the law. In Matter of Gaied v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 22 NY3d 592 (2014), Gaied was domiciled in New Jersey, ran an automotive service business on Staten Island, and owned a multi-family building there, two units rented to tenants and the third maintained for his parents. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts and held that a property interest is not enough: the taxpayer must himself have a residential interest in the property, and the statute’s purpose was to prevent tax evasion by people who are de facto New York residents claiming nonresident status.

In Matter of Obus v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, decided by the Third Department on June 30, 2022, Obus was also domiciled in New Jersey and also worked in New York City more than 183 days a year. He owned a five-bedroom vacation house in Northville, more than two hundred miles from Manhattan, which he used two or three weeks a year for skiing and racetrack visits, with a tenant in an attached apartment. The Tribunal had found it a permanent place of abode. The Third Department reversed, holding that the dwelling must actually be utilized as the taxpayer’s residence and that the analysis is fact-intensive on actual use rather than on the dwelling’s objective characteristics.

Read together, those cases are protective rather than dangerous for the ordinary mover, and they are the reason the corridor is survivable. Selling the Manhattan apartment on the way out removes the abode prong entirely and the statutory residency question closes. Keeping it does not automatically reopen the question, because Gaied and Obus require actual residential use, but it does put you in a fact-intensive dispute that you will be having with the most aggressive residency audit program in the country, and our New York residency guide records that those audits commonly run 12 to 24 months from first contact to resolution.

One more piece of arithmetic belongs here, because it is the piece people get backwards. If the statutory residency test catches you, the convenience rule stops mattering. You are a New York resident taxed on worldwide income, and the allocation fraction you were arguing about is irrelevant. The sourcing fight is the lesser problem. Losing the abode prong is the larger one.

Step back from wages and compare the two tax systems, and the corridor gets stranger. On the 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index New York ranks 50th and New Jersey 49th. Last and second to last. Whatever this move is, it is not a move out of a high-tax state.

The reason the ranking barely moves is that the two states raise their money in opposite places. New York collects 12,506 dollars per capita in state and local taxes against New Jersey’s 9,178 dollars, a genuine gap, and New York’s 4 percent state sales tax averages 8.54 percent combined against New Jersey’s 6.625 percent flat rate with no general local add-on. On both of those New Jersey is cheaper.

Property tax runs hard the other way and it is the line that decides this move for most households. New Jersey has the highest effective property tax rate in the nation at 1.88 percent of owner-occupied housing value, against New York’s 1.30 percent, and the New York figure is itself an average across a state where New York City assessment caps suppress bills far below the upstate norm. A family leaving a rent-stabilized or assessment-capped New York City apartment for a house in Bergen or Essex County is trading the 3.876 percent city income tax for a property tax bill that can easily exceed it. That is the single most common miscalculation on this corridor, and it is arithmetic, not judgment: run your actual expected property tax bill against your actual city tax saving before treating the move as a tax win.

The estate side reverses in New Jersey’s favor and reverses sharply. New York has an estate tax with a 2026 basic exclusion of 7,350,000 dollars and a cliff: once a taxable estate exceeds roughly 105 percent of the exclusion, about 7,717,500 dollars in 2026, the exclusion disappears entirely and the full estate is taxed rather than only the excess. New Jersey repealed its estate tax effective January 1, 2018. It retains an inheritance tax, but spouses, domestic partners, children, grandchildren, parents and stepchildren are Class A beneficiaries and fully exempt, so for the ordinary family leaving money to a spouse and children, New Jersey collects nothing at death. Siblings and children-in-law get a partial exemption at reduced rates, and unrelated beneficiaries are taxed at rates up to 16 percent, which matters if your will is unconventional.

Retirement income is a genuine improvement with a cliff of its own. New Jersey does not tax Social Security or military pensions, and taxpayers 62 or older can exclude up to 75,000 dollars of other retirement income for single filers or 100,000 dollars for joint filers. But the exclusion is unavailable entirely, not phased out, once total income exceeds 150,000 dollars. New York exempts Social Security in full, exempts government and military pensions in full, and exempts up to 20,000 dollars per taxpayer of other retirement income at 59 and a half. Below the New Jersey cliff New Jersey is substantially better for a retiree. One dollar above it, New York is.

Set this against moving from New York to Florida and the instructive thing is what does not change. The convenience rule is not a proximity rule. It attaches to a New York assigned office, and Huckaby settled that nine hundred miles of distance does nothing to it. A person who moves to Palm Beach and keeps working remotely for the same Manhattan employer is in exactly the position this article describes, with one difference that cuts the wrong way: Florida has no income tax, so there is no resident credit at the other end to absorb the New York liability. The New Jersey commuter at least gets Schedule NJ-COJ. The Florida mover gets the full New York bill on their remote days and no offset anywhere. What Florida does fix is the other half. Distance kills the day count, so the statutory residency test that a New Jersey commuter fails by lunchtime on a Tuesday is not in play at all. Different corridor, opposite failure mode.

Set it against moving from New Jersey to New York and the mirror is now real rather than hypothetical, which is new since 2023. A New York resident working remotely for a New Jersey employer is reached by New Jersey’s own convenience rule under P.L. 2023, c.125, precisely because New York imposes one. That is the reciprocity condition operating as designed, and it means the two directions of this corridor are no longer asymmetric the way they were for the two decades after Huckaby. Whichever way you cross the Hudson, the state your employer sits in has a claim on the days you work at home.

Which is the honest summary of the whole corridor. Moving from New York to New Jersey reliably saves you the New York City income tax and reliably does not save you New York State income tax on employment income, because the convenience rule follows the employer rather than the employee and has now survived Huckaby, the Tribunal in Zelinsky II, and the Third Department in July 2026. What the move actually decides is a set of second-order questions: whether your property tax bill eats the city tax saving, whether your estate is large enough that New York’s cliff matters more than New Jersey’s inheritance classes, and above all whether you keep a New York place of abode while commuting past 183 days, which is the one fact on this corridor that can turn a sourcing argument into full resident taxation.

The Mobility Map records days and nights by state as they happen, which on this corridor answers a question with an unusually low tolerance for error. The statutory residency day count under section 605(b)(1)(B) turns on more than 183 New York days, any part of a calendar day counts as a whole day under 20 NYCRR 105.20, and a normal Manhattan commuting pattern crosses that line months before year end. Knowing the count precisely is what tells you whether the abode prong is the only thing standing between you and worldwide New York taxation.

The same record does double duty on the sourcing side. The 20 NYCRR 132.18(a) allocation is a fraction of working days within New York over total working days, and the convenience rule decides which side of that fraction your at-home days land on. Reconstructing a year of hybrid schedule from memory is the reason allocation disputes are hard to defend, and a contemporaneous day record is the reason some of them are not.

Evidence Vault holds what this corridor asks for specifically. That means the documents behind any bona fide employer office claim under TSB-M-06(5)I: a written employer requirement or condition of employment, evidence that no designated office space is provided at a New York location, home office expense reimbursement records, and the federal home office deduction if you take one. It also means the New York abode file, which is the closing statement or lease termination on the New York apartment, the dates it was actually used, and the STAR exemption record, since continuing to claim STAR on a New York home while filing as a nonresident is one of the first cross-checks New York runs. And it means the New Jersey side: the MVC license and registration within 60 days, voter registration, and the Schedule NJ-COJ workpapers for each year.

AuditIQ surfaces the contradictions this corridor produces, most commonly a New York abode that stays available while the day count runs past 183, and an ANCHOR or STAR benefit claimed in one state against a residency position asserted in the other. Advisor sharing lets a CPA or tax attorney look at the day record, the allocation fraction and the abode question together, because on this corridor those three are one problem rather than three.

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, filings, and state exposure.

The convenience of the employer rule at 20 NYCRR 132.18(a), including the working-days allocation fraction and the requirement that any allowance for days worked outside New York be based on services which of necessity, as distinguished from convenience, obligate the employee to out-of-state duties, is discussed with the regulatory text at https://www.taxslaw.com/2024/09/new-york-tax-continues-to-inconvenience-nonresidents-working-remotely/. 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, issued May 15, 2006, is at https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/memos/income/m06_5i.pdf.

The bona fide employer office factor test, including the primary factor requiring special facilities that cannot be made available at the employer’s place of business but are available at or near the employee’s home, the six secondary factors, the ten other factors, and the rule that an office qualifies by meeting either the primary factor or at least four secondary factors and three other factors, is set out by EisnerAmper at https://www.eisneramper.com/insights/coronavirus/nys-telecommuting-ubt-0121/. The precondition that the rule applies only where the employee’s assigned or primary office, the office from which they are supervised, is in New York is described by Hodgson Russ at https://www.hodgsonruss.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Yorks%20Convenience%20Rule.pdf.

Matter of Huckaby v New York State Division of Tax Appeals, 4 NY3d 427, decided March 29, 2005, is the source of the 5 to 2 vote, Huckaby’s Tennessee residence and his employment by the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions in Jamaica, New York, the 56 New York days in 1994 and 62 in 1995 amounting to roughly 25 percent of working days, the taxation of 100 percent of his salary, the majority’s minimum-connection and rational-relationship holding, and Judge R.S. Smith’s dissent arguing that only 25 percent of the income was New York source income and invoking Hans Rees’ Sons v North Carolina: https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0051.htm.

The Tax Appeals Tribunal decision in Matter of Zelinsky, DTA Nos. 830517 and 830681, decided May 15, 2025, including the holding that Zelinsky had not demonstrated that Cardozo required him to perform the functions of his job at his home in Connecticut as opposed to anywhere else, the due process holding that he availed himself of New York’s economic market through his New York employer while working under 10 percent of his days in the state, and the dormant Commerce Clause holding, is analyzed by Hodgson Russ at https://www.hodgsonruss.com/Noonans-Notes-Blog/strike-two-in-zelinsky-ii-tax-appeals-tribunal-upholds-the-convenience-rule-again, with the Tribunal decision itself at https://www.dta.ny.gov/pdf/decisions/830517_%20830681.dec.pdf.

The Appellate Division, Third Department decision of July 2, 2026 in Zelinsky v Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, CV-25-1156, 2026 NY Slip Op 04251, is the source of the holding that the law school was indifferent to where he taught from remotely, the distinction between an executive order restricting workplace access and an employer requirement to work in a particular state, and the conclusion that the dormant Commerce Clause was not implicated and that the entirety of his salary derived from his New York employment with the tax bearing a rational relationship to New York: https://natlawreview.com/article/new-york-appellate-court-upholds-application-convenience-employer-rule-against. The June 1, 2026 oral argument, including the judge’s question about the future viability of the convenience test, is reported at https://taxprofblog.aals.org/2026/06/08/new-york-appellate-court-oral-arguments-in-zelinsky-remote-work-case/.

New Jersey’s credit for income or wage taxes paid to other jurisdictions, claimed on Schedule NJ-COJ with the NJ-1040, and the limitation that the credit cannot be more than the amount that would have been paid if the income had been earned in New Jersey, are from the Division of Taxation at https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/njit14.shtml, with the form at https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/pdf/current/schedulenjcoj.pdf. The Citizens Budget Commission figures that out-of-state taxpayers paid New York nearly 8.8 billion dollars in 2021, roughly 15 percent of state income tax revenue, with 4.3 billion from New Jersey taxpayers and 1.5 billion from Connecticut taxpayers, are reported at https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nj-offers-telecommuting-residents-reward-to-successfully-appeal-ny-income-tax/5349860/.

P.L. 2023, c.125, enacted July 21, 2023 and retroactive to January 1, 2023, is the source of New Jersey’s reciprocal convenience of the employer sourcing rule, the NJ RISE pilot program with its 25 full-time employee threshold, its grant equal to the lesser of New Jersey Gross Income Tax withholdings from reassigned employees or 500,000 dollars, its 35,000,000 dollar annual cap and its July 1, 2028 application deadline, and the credit equal to 50 percent of the additional New Jersey tax owed for a resident who obtains a final judgment from another state resulting in a refund, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2020 but before January 1, 2024: https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2022/AL23/125_.HTM. The Division of Taxation’s guidance that the New Jersey rule reaches residents of Delaware, Nebraska and New York, excludes Pennsylvania under the reciprocal agreement and treats Connecticut’s rule as itself reciprocal, is at https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/conveniencerule.shtml.

Matter of Gaied v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 22 NY3d 592 (2014), is the source of Gaied’s New Jersey domicile, his Staten Island automotive service business, the three-unit building with two units rented and the third maintained for his parents, and the holding that the taxpayer must himself have a residential interest in the property rather than merely a property interest. Matter of Obus v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, decided June 30, 2022 by the Third Department, is the source of Obus’s New Jersey domicile, his more than 183 New York days, the five-bedroom Northville house more than two hundred miles from Manhattan used two to three weeks a year, and the holding that a dwelling must actually be utilized as the taxpayer’s residence: https://www.taxslaw.com/2022/07/statutory-residence-in-new-york-time-to-rethink-the-permanent-place-of-abode-test/.

The repeal of the New York City nonresident commuter tax effective July 1, 1999, and the Court of Appeals holding that continuing to impose it on nonresidents of the state while exempting resident commuters violated the Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses, are described by Roberts & Holland at https://www.robertsandholland.com/news-and-insights/new-yorks-highest-court-holds-commuter-tax-unconstitutional/ and the New York City Independent Budget Office at https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/newsfax/elimcommutertax.html.

New York’s 50th place ranking on the 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index, its 4.00 percent to 10.90 percent income tax brackets, its 4.00 percent state sales tax averaging 8.54 percent combined, its 1.30 percent effective property tax rate on owner-occupied housing, its 12,506 dollars of state and local tax collections per capita and its estate tax are at https://taxfoundation.org/location/new-york/. New Jersey’s 49th place ranking, its 1.40 percent to 10.75 percent brackets, its 6.625 percent sales tax, its 1.88 percent effective property tax rate described as the highest in the nation, its 9,178 dollars per capita collections and its inheritance tax are at https://taxfoundation.org/location/new-jersey/.

The New York exit stickiness and audit aggressiveness ratings, the 12 to 24 month typical duration of a New York nonresident audit, the Tax Law section 605(b)(1)(B) two-prong statutory residency test, the 2022 audit guideline change defining substantially all of the taxable year as a period exceeding 10 months, the 20 NYCRR 105.20 any-part-of-a-day rule and its medical and pass-through exceptions, the New York 2026 estate tax exclusion of 7,350,000 dollars and the cliff at roughly 105 percent of it, the New York retirement income treatment, the STAR cross-check, the New Jersey exit and audit ratings, the New Jersey inheritance tax beneficiary classes, the New Jersey retirement income exclusion and its 150,000 dollar cliff, the ANCHOR cross-check, and the 60-day New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission deadline come from ResidencyIQ’s own dossier research, with underlying citations on the New York and New Jersey residency guides.