KeystrokeCowboy t1_j5p1dpl wrote
Reply to comment by vicemagnet in TikTok reportedly threatened to terminate remote employees who don't live near their assigned office location by Sorin61
An employee remoting into work in another country does not make that company operate or does buisness in that country and thus is not subject to all the other buisness requirements for that state nor is that some privacy violation. Top of your head = out of your ass.
Are you telling me people who go on vacations to other countries are legally barred from doing any work remotely in that country? Becuase you are wrong.
vicemagnet t1_j5p64rq wrote
You have not presented an example that is the same: an employee on vacation is not the same as an employee relocating and working from a new location. It’s called a false equivalency. Try to be less disingenuous in your argument going forward.
My 35 years experience tells me I know a lot more about this than you do, cowboy.
[deleted] t1_j5px22g wrote
[deleted]
0oooooooo0 t1_j5pxynz wrote
Yeah bro and I’m 35 years a rocket surgeon. 🤦🏽♂️
vicemagnet t1_j5q0lhy wrote
Well I turn 59 this week, so I guess you can’t always judge a book by its cover.
[deleted] t1_j5p7cse wrote
[removed]
Moredateslessvapes t1_j5pfguc wrote
I’m with this guy. Show some actual proof or evidence that the company would be held liable rather than the individual.
danram207 t1_j5pqtnz wrote
I don't know what constitutes "proof" but Lifehacker/G/O Media had this same issue at the start of the pandemic and it got some press:
https://www.businessinsider.com/go-media-fired-a-black-travel-writer-leaving-the-country-2020-7
DetroitLarry t1_j5pqoa4 wrote
Didn’t you read the part about their 35 years of experience?!
wabbit02 t1_j5pg0tr wrote
>An employee remoting into work in another country does not make that company operate or does buisness in that country
unfortunately the laws of many countries define that the residential status does impact an employers liability which may include employment rights, regulatory compliance and Taxation, also the laws of the source company then also have an impact meaning that the situation can be doubly complex. This is less likely to happen if the employer has a strict location policy and can show that the employee has not informed them.
https://seedlegals.com/resources/what-employment-laws-apply-to-my-staff-who-are-working-abroad/
​
>Are you telling me people who go on vacations to other countries are legally barred from doing any work remotely in that country
This usually resolves around residential status. Residential status is also separated citizenship or legal right to remain (which in some countries the employer can be held liable for despite not operating or holding a legal entity there - enforcement of which may be interesting in this case but I digress).
KeystrokeCowboy t1_j5pm4x4 wrote
Show me proof a company has had to pay back taxes for the situation called out. Not theoretical law based upon a DIFFERENT SITUATION where that employer hires people THEY KNOW are in another country....
vivikush t1_j5pmy7q wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Washington but that was just different US states.
KeystrokeCowboy t1_j5pngm9 wrote
That company employed 13 people in that state and all of them were residents. The company knew. This is not what we are talking about
wabbit02 t1_j5px7w8 wrote
generally TAX investigations where a settlement is reached are private / only reported where it goes to court and most pay before this.
there is also the issue that the employee is not "likely" to call attention to it if they are benefiting, but that doesn't mean that a company can take the risk.
KeystrokeCowboy t1_j5qjslf wrote
Where are the others if this is such a huge liability issue? This article doesn't really have a lot of details and 500k number for one employee smells like bullshit. There is more to this story. Not sure what you are even trying to blame the company here for. How is the company supposed to pay taxes for an employee that did not notify them where he was living after they got their address when hired? Are you suggesting companies need to send private tax investigators out to verify addresses?
professor__doom t1_j5pt8mc wrote
>Are you telling me people who go on vacations to other countries are legally barred from doing any work remotely in that country
That is entirely dependent on the laws of the host country. Most countries, USA included, forbid paid work while on a tourism/visitor visa. Even a "business visa" to the USA is granted for a specific purpose, i.e. attending a meeting or conference, signing a contract, assessing a property, etc. It's not for regular, day-to-day work that could be done in your home country.
KeystrokeCowboy t1_j5ptu4g wrote
Buisness Visa? Seriously. You think someone who is going to another country and getting that is the same as someone going on vacation which nobody gets a buisness visa for? If someone is going on vacation and working on some issue remotely for a company not in that country there is zero liability. If that same employee just stays there and takes up residency, that company is not liable unless its proven that employee submitted paperwork.
professor__doom t1_j5q1dfy wrote
Just because a law is hard to enforce (especially on individuals), doesn't mean that it COULDN'T bite you in the ass (especially if you're an employer).
Vacation visa (B-2): no work at all. Period.
Business visa (B-1): Work for a specific purpose, nothing that could be construed as "putting an American out of a job" (because that's what politicians care about).
USCIS does not fuck around with this. If you want to even VOLUNTEER in the USA you will need a J1 visa in many cases.
Q: if you earn income in a country, whether legally or not, are you liable for income tax to that company's tax authority?
A: Generally Yes (of course, the tax itself may be offset by foreign tax credits or other exemptions)
B: If you earn wages, is your employer liable for employment taxes where you earn it?
A: Also yes, with the same caveats.
It all comes down to enforcement and whether it's worthwhile for the tax authorities to go after you. But generally, employers make better targets than individuals. An individual (a) has less money, and (b) may just say "well I just won't ever go back to the country where I owe money." A company doesn't have that luxury if it wants to retain its clients in that country. Also, companies make juicer ATM's for tax authorities to penalize and collect from.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until you learn about data protection regulations - and the (often stricter) terms that clients sometimes dictate.
Source: work for a small head count multinational and have dealt with some of these situations regarding foreign national employees and "workcations." Maybe we could get away with it. In fact, we PROBABLY could get away with it.
But we strictly don't do the "fuck around" part, because we don't want to get bit by the "find out" part.
KeystrokeCowboy t1_j5qioc0 wrote
So you don't have any proof of an employer having to pay back taxes for an employee with the example given. Got it. F
[deleted] t1_j5q6xql wrote
[deleted]
Amyndris t1_j5rpyyp wrote
My company allows for remote work, but no more than 20 days a year outside of your assigned country, specifically for tax reasons. So I'm sure there's some reciprocal agreement between countries for small amount of days, but not a full time role.
Rickwh t1_j5xfuux wrote
I reread the posts above. I may not be an intelligent man, i may have only learned to read yesterday. But I do not believe that is what that poster is saying at all!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments