US Tax Newsroom

 Tax News Update    Email this document    Print this document  

September 10, 2020
2020-2207

Arkansas issues legal opinion on state income taxation of teleworkers

The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration's Revenue Legal Counsel issued an opinion to a taxpayer concerning the applicability of Arkansas state income tax on wages paid to an out-of- state teleworker.

Under the facts of the case, a computer programmer changed her physical work location from a business within Arkansas to the state of Washington. The Department held that despite the employee's physical location within the state of Washington, her work for an Arkansas business meets the definition of "carrying on an occupation within the state" thereby subjecting her wages to Arkansas state income tax.

This legal opinion is not specific to COVID-19 because it was requested by the taxpayer based on a 2017 change in her physical work location.

While this legal opinion applies only to the taxpayer requesting it and cannot be cited as precedent, it provides insights into how the Department might rule on audit.

Analysis

In reaching its conclusion, the Department cites ACA Section 26-51-202, which imposes an Arkansas income tax on the income received by a nonresident from an occupation carried on within the state. The Department asserts that the teleworker is carrying on a computer programming occupation within Arkansas, albeit from an out-of-state location, because those activities impact computer systems and computer users within the state.

The Department states that this legal opinion is distinguishable from the Arkansas Supreme Court decision in Cook v. Ayers, et al., 214 Ark. 308, 215 S.W.2d 57 (1976).

In the Ayers case, a Tennessee corporation operated several ice manufacturing plants in Arkansas. In

the performance of her duties, the secretary-treasurer performed 100% of her work in Tennessee and her salary from the company was her only income. The president spent on average six days each month within Arkansas supervising operations.

The Court held in Ayers that the secretary-treasurer's duties were not sufficiently connected to Arkansas and the president's duties were incidental to his Tennessee employment. Accordingly, the Court held that the presence of doubt regarding whether the General Assembly intended the income tax to extend to the income of these individuals must be resolved against the tax levy.

The Department explains that the facts are different in the case of this computer programmer. Specifically, the programmer is employed by an Arkansas employer rather than an out-of-state employer that conducts a portion of its business within the state. Further, the programmer's

day-to-day work duties are directly tied to the maintenance and manipulation of computer systems at the employer's Arkansas location. Accordingly, the activities of the computer programmer directly impact the ability of business to carry out its mission and purpose within Arkansas.

Ernst & Young LLP observations

Although not expressly set forth in Arkansas income tax law, the result of this legal opinion if applied to Arkansas income tax and/or withholding audits is similar to the "convenience of the employer rule" established by New York and several other states.

Arkansas businesses with out-of-state teleworker arrangements should consult their tax advisors to determine if Arkansas may assert that income tax and withholding apply to those wages.

———————————————

Contact Information
For additional information concerning this Alert, please contact:
 
Workforce Tax Services - Employment Tax Advisory Services
   • Debera Salam (debera.salam@ey.com)
   • Kristie Lowery (kristie.lowery@ey.com)
   • Kenneth Hausser (kenneth.hausser@ey.com)

———————————————
ATTACHMENT

EY Payroll News Flash

 

The information contained herein is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Ernst & Young LLP to the reader. The reader also is cautioned that this material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader's specific circumstances or needs, and may require consideration of non-tax and other tax factors if any action is to be contemplated. The reader should contact his or her Ernst & Young LLP or other tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Ernst & Young LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein.

 

Copyright © 1996 – 2022, Ernst & Young LLP

 

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP.

 

EY US Tax News Update Master Agreement | EY Privacy Statement