Live in California but work for Illinois-based company
California and New York are very aggressive when it comes to revenue and taxes. As such, mere having an employee in these States creates a nexus and tax/filing liability for the company. @Adam Wood mentioned sales tax - that is correct. Having an employee in the State of California will require collecting sales tax for CA, and if until now your employer didn't have to - that would be a good enough reason to refuse your request. In addition to sales taxes, there's also the issue of corporate filings (they will now have to file paperwork in CA and pay CA franchise taxes just because of you) and payroll taxes (which are pretty high in CA and NY). It will also subject the to CA/NY/WA labor laws, which are more liberal than in most of the other States. Washington doesn't have personal income tax, but does have corporate income tax and sales tax, so I'm guessing the reasons to exclude this State are the same. They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.
Where do you live? I have not seen a single instance where renting is cheaper per month then purchasing a home. You are obviously doing well, so I'm not questioning the logistics just curious.   $200,000 home or less is roughly $1,300 - $1,500 a month with everything included (property taxes, etc), based on when I was looking at homes to purchase. To rent the same size home would have been about the same (or more) depending on the area. Texas and California being my main two areas of interest. The property I purchased now was being rented out for $1,100 but a 30-year fixed mortage w/ property taxes is only about $630 a month. In my area, motor fuel taxes pay for road maintenance. The state of Illinois takes a share and send the rest to my local government. They are required to use the money only for roads. It is never enough to pay for all needed repairs, so roads are repaired based on state use estimates, road commissioner decisions and local board directions. I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements.  To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits).  One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes. "Summarized article: Barnes &amp; Noble Inc. revealed on Wednesday that the tampering of PIN pad devices in 63 of its stores was a well-organized scheme to steal financial information.   Criminals had planted a ""bug"" on a single PIN pad device at each store to capture credit card and PIN numbers. Affected stores were found in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.  Once Barnes &amp; Noble learned of the breach on September 14, the bookseller halted use of PIN pad devices in its 700 stores. The retailer's College Bookstores were not affected.   Barnes &amp; Noble is currently working with the FBI and with banks and payment card brands to identify accounts that may have been compromised.  * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit" "The real question you're asking is how you can work for your business. You cannot. Whether your ""friend"" pays you or not is entirely irrelevant. Claiming your work-related earnings as interest/dividend will make it also a tax fraud, in addition to the immigration violation (i.e.: not only deportation but also potentially jail time)." Their headquarters are just north of Sioux City, Iowa, across the river in South Dakota.  They located there for tax reasons, same as Gateway Computers back in the 1990s.   Much of the area's wealth is located just across the river in South Dakota and starves Sioux City of the taxes it needs to serve the overall population. It's one of the quirks of being in a three-state metro area (source: this is my hometown).  I could tell you more about Beef Processing Inc (BPI) around here.  They're one of the biggest sources of wealth in the area, the owners are heavily involved in the charitable scene here, too. Do you have any support for the statement that IL pensions are 'among the most generous in the entire country'.  When last I looked at some data from an AEI study ca. 2015, IL wasn't toward the top.  It isn't the terms of the pensions as much as fiscal mismanagement in funding them. "Of course you don't have to pay them - you just might not like the result. As a matter of law - given that I am not a lawyer - I am not aware of any requirement for a company to pay employees business-related expenses. An example might be having a cell phone, and according to this article companies aren't required to pay for you to have a cell phone even if they require you have one and use it as part of your employment. The primary areas where law does exist relates to company uniforms with a logo (in a very limited number of US states) and necessary personal safety equipment (in California and maybe only few other states). All other tool requirements for a job are not prohibited by law, so long as they are not illegally discriminatory (such as requiring people of a certain race or sex to buy something but no one else, etc). So a company can require all sorts of things, from having an internet connection to cell phone to laptop to specialty tools and equipment of all sorts, and they are even allowed to deduct the cost of some things from your pay - just so long as you still get paid minimum wage after the deductions. With all that said, the company's previous payments of fees and willingness to pay a monthly internet fee does not obligate them to pay other fees too, such as moving/installation/etc. They may even decide to no longer provide internet service at their expense and just require you to provide it as a condition of employment. You can insist on it with your employer, and if you don't have an employment contract that forbids it they can fire you or possibly even deduct it from your pay anyway (and this reason might not be one that allows you to collect unemployment insurance benefits - but you'd need to check with an expert on that). You can refuse to pay AT&T directly, and they can cancel the internet service - and your employer can then do the same as in the previous condition. Or you can choose to pay it - or ask your employer to split the cost over a few checks if it is rather high - and that's about it. Like the cost of anything else you have to pay  - from your own food to your computer, clothes, etc - it's best to just consider it your own ""cost of doing business"" and decide if it's still in your interest to keep working there, and for something to consider in future pay negotiations! You may also qualify for an itemized Employee Business Expense deduction from the IRS, but you'll need to read the requirements carefully and get/keep a receipt for such expenses."