The hard-working telecommuters who have chosen to work from home for New York companies thought they might avoid a taxing commute by doing so. Instead, they have found themselves trading one taxing commute for another. New York state and city, not satisfied with the levies with which it taxes the average office working stiff, are asserting the right to tax the income of telecommuters — regardless of what state where the work took place and whether another state is already taxing the same income. It’s an idea that makes one wonder whether Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg are just plain intent on chasing more companies out of New York.

Most states tax income based on where the work is performed, not the location of the employer. New York, however, goes by what it calls the “convenience of the employer” rule. Whereas most states give workers a credit against taxes paid on income in other states, New York will only do this if the worker was required by his or her employer to work out of state. If the employee is choosing to work from home, he or she is penalized by being taxed twice on the same work.

The plaintiff in a case before the top court in New York State, Professor Edward Zelinsky of Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law School, travels into the city three days a week during the academic year. Since Mr. Zelinsky chooses to live in Connecticut the other days of the week, and work from home, he is taxed by both Connecticut and New York on those days.

This is reasonable enough on the part of the Nutmeg State, as the work is being done there. For the same reason, it is plausible that Mr. Zelinsky will be able to win his case on Commerce Clause grounds since New York is trying to tax work performed in another jurisdiction. But even if this scheme is found constitutional, New York cannot dodge the fact that this is just another disincentive for business to stay in New York.

For any firm with a significant number of workers who would like to telecommute, the incentive is to move elsewhere. The idea that companies will stay “Because We’re New York” is, as Miss Shlaes notes in the adjacent column, provincial. Some argue that the state and city provide services to these workers by providing them to their employers. Unlike commuters who use the roads and trains to get into New York City — and even these don’t deserve an extra tax burden — telecommuters are taking up no space or resources. Mr. Zelinsky is one of these lightening the load on our infrastructure. Neither he nor his employers deserve the treatment they have been getting from the New York tax collectors.