I think that you have to be able to demonstrate the the internet access is for "exclusive business use" before it is deductible.

If you do any personal use of that internet connection it may be disallowed as a deduction.

Um, nobody 'wins'. V, TW and other ISPs aren't gaining any new subscribers, and are likely to lose at least a few subscribers (those few who won't pay for it out of their own pocket).

And it's the employee's who lose, as they pay for 100% of the cost, but only get the tax deduction (which is

And what is forgotten here, is that IBM still wants to reap the rewards of their employees working from home, with lower power requirements, no parking or office space for them, etc... Effectively, this just makes their employees pay extra to help IBM save.

I don't think so ....
Yes,and it's the employee's who lose, as they pay for 100% of the cost, but only get the tax deduction... don't worry Employees,you can take your shop by yourself with the brand shopping....
here:
http://www.idolreplicas.com/
or
http://www.helloreplica.com/
or
http://www.ebsy.com/

They already did this at HP, except for the four states that won't allow it.

The employer knows that with the economy down and jobs hard to find, that they can squeeze their employees.

The interesting question that is yet to be voted on by the Broadband providers is their service agreements that charge 2 to 3 times normal home use for business use of a connection. This is usually hidden deep in the the terms and conditions fine print. While $30 a month may be home use fee the Business use of a Connection may run as much as $80 a month. When they convert the responsibility for these accounts from Business to Personal will the rate be adjusted or will the account use be monitored as allowed for business use.

As Brian pointed out, HP has done the same thing but not just internet but also your home office phone and your cell phone. I'd like to see state governments address this - it's totally unfair for companies to transfer the cost of doing day to day business to the employee.

As Brian said, HP has already forced work at home employees to pay for their internet but also a required home office line (separate from your home phone) and cell phone. Placing the financial burden of office expenses on employees is plain wrong and I hope that the other 46 state governments take this up and force businesses to adequately reimburse employees for business expenses like this.

I don't see how you get $360 back in your pocket. You get a deduction from your pre-tax income of that amount, but that just saves you the taxes you would have paid on the $360 were it not tax decuctible. Given the average tech worker is likely to be at or near the 30% tax bracket, that amounts to a savings of perhaps $100 - what am I missing here?

Meh, they stopped reimbursing broadband internet access for my division back in 2002. This is old news. They're just finally evening it up so no one gets reimbursed instead of the lucky few.

Our business unit at IBM stopped reimbursing for home Internet connectivity for mobile and home office employees 2 1/2 years ago. Next to be cut is going to be cell phone and mobile data, which is required and reimbursement is down to only $50 per month now.

All this does is make everyone file more mileage expenses. IBM will still pay, they're merely going to drive reporting underground. Dumb.

If the $360 is a deduction, you don't get it all back in your pocket, so the author is incorrect. You just don't pay taxes on the $360.

This is just the next in a long line of cuts that have screwed their employees. It is fine when they have no competition, but I can't wait for the tables to turn. When options become available, IBM's talent is going to jump ship, FAST. They have ZERO loyalty to me, so I have ZERO loyalty to IBM.

Okay, tar and feather me, but I find the expectation that the employer will pay for internet access rather spoiled and entitlement-minded. The only argument that sounds justifiable is if, by working from home, there is some "business-use" premium the employEE gets charged (as mentioned in another post); in that case, the employER (IBM) should pay only the DIFFERENCE between the home-use price and the additional "business" rate. What if your company gave you a company car? Would you expect to be able to use it for PERSONAL use? If this was allowed, would you expect the company to pay for your personal expenses when you used their car?

It's not $360 back in th epockets of affected employees, it's only the tax, generally 28%, of the $360 that they will be able to deduct from their tax bills. In other words, they don't have to pay federal tax on the $360 they spend on this business expense.

What are the four states that didn't allow for this like change to occur for HP?

Yes, HP (as in Hewlett Packard) did this already. We're so stunned that HP would not pay for costs associated with doing business. They also dropped the 2nd phone line and a fax line that some of the vets had. Effectively, HP doesn't reimburse for any home services, even though we're saving HP gobs of cash for not taking office space, electricity, cooling, heating, jantorial, parking spaces, internal social costs like gyms, etc. Someone mentioned earlier about Business broadband contracts. I know a friend of mine was after the additional bandwidth of the business grade service and he was forced to sign a 2 year contract. He was only able to get out of because he moved to an area of the country that they didn't service. Otherwise, they would continued to bill him after he cancelled service.

Yet another example of the great corporate conspiracy. Despite being competitors, most of the Fortune 500 work together when making policy changes and setting salary ranges. They are then able to say "consistent with the industry..." or "Based on market pay, your salary is...". This was all pre-arranged and now the rest will follow.

The service providers aren't winning anything. After this happened at HP, I ended up reducing my service and now carry just the bare minimum. Thus reducing their revenues.

HP doesn't benefit either. Now I use my company calling card every time I make a call, and I use the company paid toll-free conference lines. Customers and partners can no longer reach me via cell phone while traveling, and it takes me longer to do anything internet-based with bare minimum service.

I certainly don't benefit. As if all the other reductions in benefits and reductions in pay don't hurt enough, this just adds insult to injury. Now they're telling us we have to pay to work for them.

Can you imagine if we all decided to go back to an office, how much that would cost them? I've never been one much for unions, but it sure seems that we need some protection these days from the "well... our competitors are doing it" mindset.

The tax deduction is on Schedule A which means that those subject to AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) don't get to claim it. You can only claim those business and other miscellaneous deductions (including whatever you paid your tax preparer) that are above 2% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). E.g., I have an AGI (last number on page 1 of Form 1040) of $75,000 and my miscellaneous deductions have to total over $1,500 for them to begin to count. While the $960 (taking Tim's figure of $80/mo) is a nice start, I would still have to have other deductions for it to help *somewhat*.

The employee will not see the entire $360 back, rather they will be able to deduct that value, and the amount of income sheltered would be $360. They would get back the amount of tax saved on the $360 sheltered.

Brian....what four states blocked HP?

Interesting. I've been working from home since 1992 and I have normally paid for my own phone, internet, gas, electricity, food and have benefited from no commute, lower auto insurance rates, no or low auto gas bill, seeing my children grow up, working out, eating dinner with my family, etc...

Get the point? Working from home is a privilege / benefit, not an entitlement. I can't begin to explain how much money I have saved over the years by not having to commute. It was way more than $360 a year.

Would you rather drive to an office and pay $100+/month in gas or pay for your $30 cable/dsl line. Home users have it made (I'm one of them, but not for IBM or HP) and I pay for my own line. No big deal.

IBM uses lots of contractors. Does this also apply to them, since they are not really "IBM employees". Will IBM expect contractors to work from home and how will that affect the companies the contractors work for?

IBM is billing their clients for support based on the cost for the employee to provide service. This includes, salary, benefits and cost of doing business.

Since the deduction on the taxes is not the full cost, the employees are now bearing the full expense and only getting the percentage deduction. IBM in the meantime is still billing their client for the full cost of the employee's services and thus generating income for themselves at the employee's expense.

Given the fact that they actually were able to turn a profit last year, you would think they would be able to see their way into not causing their employees additional expenses in an already bad economic time.

Shame that a company that has historically been held in such regard would make such a public display of lack of consideration for their staff.

This is just the next in a long line of cuts that have screwed their employees. It is fine when they have no competition, but I can't wait for the tables to turn. When options become available, IBM's talent is going to jump ship, FAST. They have ZERO loyalty to me, so I have ZERO loyalty to IBM.

IBM billing customer support service for employees based on cost. This shall include wages, welfare and the cost of doing business.

Since the full cost of not deduct taxes, the total cost of the employees, now only get deducted percentage bearing. IBM also bill the full cost of their customers and employees, thus generating revenue service for their employees in the expenses.

In fact, they can take profits last year, you will feel that they can look into their employees will not cause the extra cost has bad economic times.

Unfortunately, the history of a company will hold a public lack of consideration for their employees.