Regular readers of this blog know that we have extensively covered the twists and turns concerning the controversy over New York’s telecommuter tax (here, here, here, and here).  Here are this week’s developments:

The National Law Journal published an article on the subject, New York Loses Bid to Assess Tax on Telecommuter From Connecticut (5/18).  Here is the opening:

In a rare victory for a telecommuter in a "convenience of the employer" rule case, an administrative law judge has held against the state Division of Taxation and said New York has no business taxing all of the income of a man who worked from his home in New Canaan, Conn. Matter of C. Gregory Devers, 819751, illustrates that while the controversial test used to determine if out-of-state residents can allocate earnings between New York and another jurisdiction is a high hurdle, it is not insurmountable.

Jim Maule (Villanova) has an extensive discussion of the article on his blog.  He rightly asks:

The idea that New York thinks it can tax a person who has no employment contact with New York other than being employed by a company with contacts in New York is startling. Theoretically, what’s to stop New York from trying to impose income tax on all the employees, no matter where located, of Citibank, NBC, or any other company with New York employees or even just New York contacts?