Connecticut
New Jersey is pushing local telecommuters who work for New York companies to appeal their Empire State tax bills
Telecommuting, a pandemic-era novelty that has become a permanent alternative for many people, has some Connecticut and New Jersey employees of New York-based companies questioning why they still have to pay personal income tax to the Empire State.
Their home states are wondering as well.
Fed up with losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue each year, New Jersey is now offering a state tax credit to residents who work from home and successfully appeal their New York tax assessment. Connecticut is considering a similar measure.
The Garden State’s bounty — a rebate worth roughly half a person’s refund of income taxes they paid to New York for the 2020-2023 period — has been claimed so far by one winning litigant since the state made the offer in July, according to the state’s Division of Taxation. That taxpayer received a $7,797.02 refund for their efforts. Officials hope that person’s windfall will encourage others to follow suit.
Another New Jersey resident who is taking up the state’s offer is Open Weaver Banks, a tax attorney who prefers working from home to braving an “awful” commute into the Big Apple. She’s also filed one of a growing number of similar challenges.
“The process of doing the refund and the appeal isn’t all that intimidating to me,” said Banks, a tax partner at Hodgson Russ LLP. “I’m on New Jersey’s team here. I would like to see more residents doing this. I think they have a really fair point.”
New York requires out-of-state commuters who work for New York-based companies to pay New York income taxes, even if they’ve stopped physically going in to the office most days a week, unless they can satisfy very strict requirements for what constitutes a bona fide home office.
A home office near a specialized track to test new cars, for example, might qualify if it couldn’t be replicated in New York. But a worker with specialized scientific equipment set up in their home that could be duplicated over the border would still have to pay, according to a memorandum from the New York State Department of Taxation.
When the nature of work was upended in 2020, New York should have “softened” these requirements, Banks said. “And they didn’t. They are just standing by and fighting the claims.”
Both neighboring states have implemented “retaliatory” tax rules that affect New Yorkers who work remotely for Connecticut or New Jersey-based companies, but these workforces are far smaller and their overall tax payments don’t make up the difference.
Out-of-state taxpayers paid New York nearly $8.8 billion in 2021 in taxes, roughly 15% of the state’s total income tax revenues, according to the Citizens Budget Commission in New York. Of that, $4.3 billion came from New Jersey taxpayers and $1.5 billion from Connecticut taxpayers.
It’s unclear how much of that was earned at home. But out-of-state employees of New York-based companies who work remotely are increasingly appealing their tax bills, Amanda Hiller, the acting commissioner and general counsel for the New York Department of Taxation and Finance, told state legislators recently.
Hiller acknowledged that New York’s decades-old policy, known as a “convenience of the employer rule,” has created a financial burden for New Jersey and Connecticut, which provide tax credits to their residents for the income taxes they’ve paid New York so they are not double-taxed.
New Jersey’s Division of Taxation said the state’s long-term goal is to have New York’s rule overturned entirely, something that will likely require a taxpayer’s legal challenge to succeed before the U.S. Supreme Court. That could be a tall order: New Hampshire tried to sue Massachusetts for temporarily collecting income tax from roughly 80,000 of its residents who worked from home during the pandemic, and the Supreme Court rejected the complaint without comment.
Officials in New Jersey estimate it could reap as much as $1.2 billion annually if residents working from home for New York companies are taxed at home. Connecticut could recoup about $200 million, its officials say.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont has proposed an initiative similar to New Jersey’s that needs final legislative approval. It’s unclear, however, whether it can pass before the session ends May 8.
“We think it’s an unconstitutional overreach by the state of New York,” Jeffrey Beckham, secretary of Connecticut’s state budget office, said recently. “We think our residents should paying tax to us and they’d be paying at a lower rate.”
Indeed, the top marginal state income tax rate, as of Jan. 1, for individuals in New York is 10.90%. Connecticut’s top rate is 6.99% and New Jersey’s is 10.75%, according to the Tax Foundation.
“An awful lot of people are hurt by these laws,” said Edward Zelinsky, a Connecticut resident, tax law expert and professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law in New York City. “While New York and other states like to pretend that these are wealthy people, the people who are most hurt by this rule are often people of modest income, middle income, people who can’t afford lawyers.”
Zelinksy has been trying, so far without success, to challenge New York’s tax rule for about 20 years, including a pending case over the income he earned working from home while his school was closed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
A small number of states, including Arkansas, Delaware, Nebraska and Pennsylvania, have tax rules similar to New York’s. New Jersey and Pennsylvania have a reciprocal income tax agreement.
Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, who is in the unique position of being the former New Jersey state treasurer and a former New York commissioner of taxation and finance, believes eventually the right litigant will “get it before the right court to challenge it.”
But former New Jersey state Sen. Steven Oroho, an accountant who commuted for nearly two decades into New York City and who pushed as a legislator to address the inequity, said he’s skeptical of New Jersey’s commitment to the effort, which puts the financial onus of a potentially lengthy and expensive legal challenge on the individual taxpayer.
“New York is very, very aggressive and unfortunately, in my view,” said Oroho, “New Jersey has been extremely passive.”
Connecticut
Exclusive | Ex-CBS anchor Josh Elliott back on Connecticut dating scene after ugly Liz Cho split
Ex-CBS host Josh Elliott is looking for love eight months after he filed for divorce from “Eyewitness News” anchor Liz Cho.
“Josh is out and about on the dating scene in Fairfield County,” a spy exclusively tells Page Six. “He’s been seen at the bars in the area where middle-aged singles congregate.”
A second source tells Page Six, “Josh isn’t dating anyone, but he is open to meeting people. His daughter is his priority.”
Page Six can also reveal that Elliott moved out of his and Cho’s estimated $4.2 million Connecticut marital home in January.
In court papers dated Jan. 29 and obtained by Page Six, Cho revealed Elliott moved out of their home and into a new residence without her knowledge.
Cho claimed she was notified by Optimum on Jan. 21, regarding her ex installing internet at his new home.
“The Defendant learned for the first time from said communication that on or about January 15, 2026, the Plaintiff secured an unfurnished rental residence located in Southport, Connecticut,” the filing read.
“It is now clear that the Plaintiff surreptitiously entered a new lease…” the court papers continued.
A rep for Elliott did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment.
Page Six broke the ousted CBS anchor filed for divorce from Cho after a decade of marriage on June 20, 2025.
“The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably,” the court papers read. Elliott asked for a “dissolution of the marriage” and for “an equitable distribution of all property, both real and personal.”
Cho responded to her estranged husband’s complaint on Nov. 6 and filed a cross-complaint against him. She also stated their marriage “has broken down irretrievably.”
The divorce became messy when Cho requested “copies of written correspondence, emails, cards, WeChat messages, Facebook messages, social media messaging, instant messaging, telephonic text messages, transcribed voicemail messages or any written forms of communication” between Elliott and “any person, other than the defendant, with whom [Elliott] have or have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, from July 11, 2015, to the present.”
Elliott objected the request on the “grounds that the time frame of the request for production is unreasonable, unnecessary, harassing and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Cho also requested “monies spent for the benefit of any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, other than the defendant,” “property given or transferred by you to any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, other than the defendant,” “monies spent for your benefit by any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship with, other than the defendant.”
The TV personality in addition requested financial records, documentation proving Elliott’s search for employment — as he was ousted from CBS in 2017 — travel invoices, and more. Elliott objected to the requests.
A source close to the couple previously told Page Six, “This is standard in a divorce. Her lawyer is doing a thorough document request. The documents she is requesting are standard.” The insider also insisted there is no evidence Elliott had a relationship with anyone outside the marriage.
Also in the Jan. 29 court filing, Cho filed a motion for contempt against Elliott regarding their jointly owned marital Connecticut mansion.
Cho claimed Elliott arranged for a moving truck to come to the marital residence while she was on vacation with her daughter on Jan. 19.
Cho claimed Elliott moved a “significant amount of furniture and furnishings from the marital residence,” and their “two Portuguese water dogs,” which she alleged at the time of the filing were not returned.
The court docs continued to allege, “On Tuesday, January 6, 2026, [Cho] realized that she was missing a valuable watch and earrings from her jewelry bag. As [Elliott] is the only other person who had access to the missing watch and jewelry, [Cho] believes [Elliott] is in possession of such personal property.”
She claimed his alleged actions are a “willful violation” of the court’s orders.
The insider alleged Elliott was the one to take care of the dogs and that he took “a small amount of furniture.”
In Elliott’s response to her filing, he objected to her request and claimed her allegations are “false and inflammatory.”
He claimed in court papers, “[Cho] alleges [Elliott] ‘ransacked’ and ‘abandoned’ the marital residence — claims that are patently false and intended to annoy, harass and intimidate [Elliott].
“[Elliott] did not ransack the marital home. He did not damage the property. He did not render the residence uninhabitable. He removed limited personal property and furnishings so he would have a safe haven from [Cho’s] escalating and erratic behavior direct at not only [Elliott], but his minor child as well.”
In a separate filing, he continued to defend his actions by alleging, “[Elliott] removed only limited furniture items and furnishings, many from the basement, solely to furnish a new residence after removing himself and his child from a hostile environment created by [Cho]. All property remains intact and subject to equitable distribution.”
In regard to the jewelry claim, Elliott said, “Perhaps most egregious is [Cho’s] baseless accusation that [Elliott] stole her jewelry. This allegation is made without evidence, without corroboration and without even a good-faith attempt to verify the truth.”
He then accused her of “monitoring and listening to [Elliott’s] private phone calls; rifling through [Elliott’s] personal belongings and closet; leaving the marital residence for extended periods without communication despite the presence of two dogs requiring daily care” and more claims.
He is requesting that the court deny her motion for contempt and they are due in court on March 20.
Lawyers for Cho and Elliott did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment regarding the divorce.
Elliott, 54, and Cho, 55, met while working for ABC and got married in July 2015.
This was the second marriage for both, as they each share a daughter from their previous relationships.
Cho has been with ABC on “Eyewitness News” since 2003, while Elliott was with ABC’s “Good Morning America” from 2011 to 2014.
After a brief stint with NBC, he joined CBSN as lead daytime anchor in March 2016. Nearly a year later, he was let go from the company.
Elliott has been out of the spotlight in recent years, but is now in talks to join Gayle King and Nate Burleson on “CBS Mornings,” Awful Announcing reported.
A man was charged with murder and interfering with police on Sunday night.
According to police, officers were dispatched to an apartment on Washington Street for a wellness check of a woman who was reportedly unconscious and not breathing.
When officers arrived, they made contact with a man in the apartment who refused to cooperate and would not allow officers access. They then had to force entry into the apartment where they located the victim suffering from severe head trauma as well as the aggressive male, police said.
The man was secured and transported to the Hartford Police Detention Facility and is being held on a million-dollar bond.
The victim was revealed to be 76-year-old Linda Anthony and was pronounced deceased on scene.
The Hartford Police Major Crimes and Crime Scene Divisions responded to the scene and assumed the investigation.
Hartford police are investigating a fatal vehicle accident that occurred early Sunday morning in the area of Elizabeth and North Beacon Street.
Police say they were dispatched to the area for reports of a single vehicle crash and found a 2013 Hyundai Sonata crashed into a retaining wall on the west side of the intersection.
According to police, 31-year-old Shalique Payne of Manchester sustained serious life-threatening injuries.
He was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The Hartford Police Crime Division responded and is investigating the scene.
The victim has not been identified and anyone with information is asked to call the Tip Line at 860-722-TIPS (8477).
Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”
FAA grounds all JetBlue flights after request from airline
Nature needs a little help in the inventive Pixar movie ‘Hoppers’ : Pop Culture Happy Hour
Apple smart home display rumors now point to a fall launch with iOS 27
Trump says it’s an ‘honor’ to keep Strait of Hormuz open for China and other countries
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Trump reveals top issues GOP should focus on to secure midterms victory: ‘I’ve never been more confident’
NATO intercepts another Iranian missile in Turkish airspace
Is Iran another Iraq? : Sources & Methods
Trump says Iran war will be “over pretty quickly” as oil price hits 6 year high | BBC News
China-linked birth tourism under scrutiny as GOP lawmakers press Trump admin for answers
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Pennsylvania5 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
News1 week ago2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
-
Sports5 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Virginia6 days agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia