That solution seems to be the good one.

>IMHO, the employee paying taxes to the state where is located the company is plain wrong. What services the state provide to the employee? None. The employee should pay taxes in his state of residence and the company should pay taxes to the state where it is located in function of their income.
>
>>I think I understand what you mean but this opens the door to who gets the biggest share of that money. I see this as being something a bit complex.
>>
>>Usually somebody pays taxes because they use the products and/or services of a given place. But in this case what would justify paying taxes to NY?
>>
>>This looks like a weird decision. I don't really get it. To me it just looks like another way to get more money. Nothing really logical. They just found this way to get more money out of (extremely rich <vbg>) IT workers.