State tax filing

@kristenelby You have personally worked with this, so to an extent I defer to your expertise.  You state in essence that there is a path to argue New York's position, and that it has been argued successfully.  What is on the books currently for New York when it comes to the telecommuter and the convenience principle is more recent than the 1978 Hayes case you cite.  And it's a position that New York has argued and won more successfully than not.  This is no way is a means to advocate New York's stance, but simply a recognition that their stance is what it is.

Clearly, with the convenience principle, New York has established, and backed up in the courts this position.  A most noticeable precedent more recent than Hayes is Zelinsky v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York, 42 1 N.Y.3d 85, 801 N.E.2d 840, 769 N.Y.S.2d 464 (2003) as explained here.  In the following article that provides guidance on the convenience principle The Connecticut Vs. New York Convenience Rule Battle, it shows that other states have had to acquiesce to New York's stance.

I won't argue that all of the procedure you mention as being true.  But what I believe to be at the real crux of the matter when it comes to the telecommuter is not whether they are physically without New York when performing their work, but rather whether or not their work "rises to the level of necessity of the employer" or not.  And I can see how two different desk auditors can look at the exact same set of facts and circumstances and reach different conclusions, and justify their conclusions.  

For the circumstances of those who you have reached out to in this post, I have to believe that they were able to establish with the auditors that their telework was performed because of necessity and not convenience.  While it seems logical that someone living in Florida is not working in New York out of convenience, I can see how New York can argue that they are, particularly if they moved from New York and that move was for personal and not business necessity.  In such a case, I'm sure it could be argued that, while the individual is no longer taxable to New York as a resident, the income is still being performed (virtually) within New York due to the convenience of the employee working from home.

I hope you can see this as healthy debate on this subject, which is what is meant here.   You obviously have tremendous first-hand expertise that I won't contest.  But I'm sure you'd also recognize with that expertise that it's not a clear-cut issue, and there are risks (smaller or greater) for a taxpayer taking a position contrary to what is the "official stance" of the state.