Tax Implication of COVID-19 Induced Remote Employment A U.S. company has instructed it's employees to work from home for a period extending 4 weeks following city and state guidelines as a necessary precaution in response to COVID-19. Subsequently company workers have set up makeshift offices at home in. What if anything at all about the "makeshift office" is tax deductible for the 2020 tax season ( -next year).
You will probably not be able to take a tax deduction for this. The IRS requires that the space that you use for your home office is that the portion of your house is exclusively and regularly used for business purposes. It also must be the principle place of your business. Some employees can use the home-office deduction, but there are tests there too: Your business use must be for the convenience of your employer You cannot rent any portion of your home to your employer You have to meet the above (exclusivity/regularly) criteria It's unlikely that you will be able to deduct a home office expense as a tax deduction for the 2020 tax year (2019 tax year has already passed) due to quarantine measures unless you continue to be quarantined for the remainder of the year (or a significant portion of it).
In the US what is/are the legal definitions of 'workplace'? Absent a statutory or contractual definition, the plain meaning is adopted "unless doing so would result in absurd, unintended consequences", Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal.5th 522 (2018). Pulaski v. California OSHA, 90 CalRptr.2d 54, 69 (1999) points out that "'[w]orkplace' is commonly understood as covering any place where work is performed. This is especially true where worker health and safety is concerned". See also [non-precedential] [Covia Communities v. McInerney, (Court of Appeals of California, Dec. 2019)]3 ("The plain meaning of the term [...] does not limit 'workplace' to one location [...]. Nor does the plain meaning of 'workplace' require that the employer own the subject property"). Thus, a person's homeoffice also fits the definition of 'workplace'. Can an employer dismiss a smoker for smoking at home during mandatory homeoffice (and on a teleconference) or would this be perceived as discriminatory? Discriminatory means that the dismissal is motivated by the status of employee being insofar as a smoker rather than his act of smoking during the performance of work. By way of analogy, consider the laws against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation: The ban on that discrimination does not entitle the employee to engage in sexual intercourse during a teleconference. Most bans on smoking in the workplace are intended to protect other employees' health and safety. From the remark in Pulaski, it follows that smoking at home during mandatory homeoffice time would not impair other employees' health and safety. That being said, the employer might have valid reasons for prohibiting to smoke during a teleconference. For instance, doing so could be perceived as unprofessional, and therefore detrimental to the image of the company.
All employees in Australia are covered by state-based Worker’s Compensation insurance. This is the workers’ guide for NSW. In theory, your loss of income and medical expenses should be claimable. However, as it seems that you did not follow the required procedures, in practice, you may find it a bureaucratic nightmare. First, you needed to have been seen by a registered Australian doctor and receive a Workers Compensation certificate to get the ball rolling. Do you have evidence that the injury occurred at work? Second, benefits are suspended if you leave the country. There may be exemptions for temporary workers but I am unaware of them. Contact the authority responsible for workers compensation in the state you were injured.
They are generally taxed on the portion of their income that is effectively connected with the United States at the same tax rates that apply to domestic C corporations. But, this can be modified in some cases by tax treaties with the country where the corporation is incorporated. The definition of what constitutes "effectively connected income" is a bit arcane but basically involves income from either real estate or an active trade or business within the United States, as opposed to passive financial instrument income such as interest on a bond or promissory note, dividends, or capital gains on the sale of a security. There are many gray areas, which international tax lawyers make their livings cultivating and navigating.
I infer from the use of the past tense &quot;worked&quot; that you no longer work for the company in question. Also, from the fact that you are wondering whether there might be negative consequences, I infer that you do not have permission to use the systems in question. The specific consequences will depend on where the company and its computers are located, as well as on the nature of the systems you log in to and on what you do with those systems, but it's certainly possible to receive a penalty of several years' imprisonment. The fact that you created the system in question makes no difference.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen The thrust of this question, as well as many others you have posted, seems to be looking for a way of avoiding your obligations under the GDPR because they are difficult, onerous and/or expensive. Too bad! You don’t have the option of which laws you comply with and which ones you don’t. If I had my choice, I’d comply with the GDPR and not with tax law, but I don’t so I can’t. You have 3 simple choices: Do your best and insure the rest. This means learning what’s required and implementing it to the best of your ability and taking out appropriate insurance cover to deal with any mistakes you make. Ignore the law and hope you don’t get caught. Don’t release apps.
TL;DR Yes, but there are very important side effects you might want to know. [Next three paragraphs are obsolete because further case detailing, but are relevant as the original case is still readable]. He has to either sell shares to you1 or give away shares to you2. There might be, however, family business law applicable, making an exemption from taxes quoted in the footnotes detailing the previous paragraph. Ask your father whether he knows anyone or not. And from then on you might be responsible for taxes imposed on the company (go ahead with the TS;DR). That’s a side consequence. If the workshop or office is free from VAT, I don't know why would anyone have to pay taxes from the place's acquisition. You would normally pay ITP-AJD from that transaction, but it certainly [(article 6)] looks like nonresident nationals are free from it. The important bit is that, as wrote in the previous answer's version, you can be called co-responsible for company's taxes if things go wrong. 1: Then you pay ITP-AJD taxes for that, because of its article 6.1 A) if you came back to Spain (or you appear in census fiscally in Spain). I don't say you're not subject to some other tax or some other case of this tax. Not to mention maybe you are not subject to this, but your brother might be. 2: Then you are subject to ISD taxes because of its article 3.1 b), read article 20.2 c) too as a confirmation that LLC shares are subject to this tax. TS;DR He told us that first we would need to be registered as self-employed workers, then this business would be put in our name and every month each of us would have to send to a bank account (local to my home country) 95% of the revenue. My brother and I would each keep the remaining 5%. &nbsp; [Next two paragraphs are obsolete because further case detailing, but are relevant as the original case is readable]. All of this is known as simulation, at least in the Spanish legal framework. That's something you might want to search about. Ask your father how is he going to sell [which percent shares?] of his company to you and your brother, and for which price (of course don't tell here). &nbsp; [...] every month each of us would have to send to a bank account (local to my home country) 95% of the revenue. My brother and I would each keep the remaining 5%. My father's new business is not yet active nor registered (as per my knowledge). His plan is to make my brother and I owners of the space where this business would take place, and then we would register and start this business without legally involving my father. You would be owner of a company, and its office or workshop, but not of its revenue. That could be argued as a case of absolute(resource in Spanish language) simulation. You want to read article 43.1 g) and h) of Law 58/2003. Your Spanish income might be subject to IRNR, maybe not. If a very large income, then most likely. We're discussing percentages, so nobody can know for sure. But that's better, for too large quantities could even make enough bulk for a criminal offence (in case not declared). So if it feels like a lot of money (what you earn in clear numbers, not what you de facto keep), then you might want to make sure you tax pay it3 (probably making sure your father knows altogether this plan of yours). You could eventually [my guess] even be charged with ISD for that revenue transfer back to Spain (if the receiver misses to pay them), if you're not co-owner of the bank account. 3: So you might end up with net loss! Depending on tax rates [am not familiar with]. I am basically clueless about the laws in this regard, while he is a lawyer. [...] Then make him teach you whatever necessary until you trust him more than Stack Exchange. Is this a legal way to avoid extra taxes or is this a way for seeking legal trouble? Possibly both. I think you shouldn't approve este negocio if you don't know (1) what's the current accounting situation of that company, (2) the current taxes situation of that company, and specially (3) what's your participation (and your brother's, and your father's) quota at any point in the company's life, from which some of the legal responsibilities might be derived. In general, you want to read section 3.a "responsibles" of chapter II "taxpayers" of title II "taxes" of Law 58/2003. That's only for the truly worst of cases. In a wonderful world it's an overcautious baseline. But if things go wrong; and this could not necessarily be caused by your father, but by partners/associates/co-managers/co-de-facto-owners of him, or even mid-tier managers or high profile employees; it would be the appropriate base line (only tax related, not considering other kind of civil responsibilities that could apply). If the company does its taxes alright, there should be however nothing to worry about. For me all of this can be narrowed down to two-three essential things: (1) trust in your father (and his future employees and his future potential partners/associates/co-managers/co-de-facto-owners), (2) how much are you wanting to play things safe or risky on your side, and (depending on earnings volume) (3) how likely are you going to be subject of IRNR investigations, or your money transfers out of your account be investigated because missed ISD duty (if whoever receives misses a large ISD duty). DISCLAIMER: This is not your legal advisory, it's a vague, yet somewhat informed, entry level reference in order to guide you. Here's no responsibility for any damages caused. If on doubt, always choose to go hire a lawyer.
In the U.S.: To my knowledge all states and jurisdictions that with a "sales tax" technically have a "use" tax, which means the tax liability falls on the purchaser. However, they require "businesses" (whose exact definition varies by jurisdiction) to collect and remit that tax on behalf of "consumers" (which can also vary, e.g., to exclude businesses that resell). Historically consumers have avoided paying use taxes by purchasing from out-of-state businesses that are not subject to their home states' laws on withholding the use tax: while technically a violation of the tax law neither consumers nor states have had an interest in calculating or auditing use taxes owed, except in the case of very large and unusual transactions. There is a large effort underway by states and "brick-and-mortar" stores that lose business to this virtual "mail order tax exemption" to subject out-of-state businesses to the requirement of collecting use taxes on behalf of the state. A few online businesses (notably Amazon) have acquiesced to this demand. To answer your question: In the U.S., an individual who is not making a "business" of selling items or services is generally exempt from the requirement to collect sales tax. It is the purchaser who has the legal obligation to declare and pay tax on such transactions. But purchasers rarely do.