Florida — Personal Income Tax

Florida is constitutionally prohibited from imposing a personal income tax on individuals. Article VII, Section 5(a) of the Florida Constitution expressly provides that no tax upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens of the state shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of the aggregate of amounts which may be allowed to be credited upon or deducted from any similar tax levied by the United States or any state. Because the federal government no longer offers credits for state income taxes paid, this constitutional provision effectively bars Florida from imposing any personal income tax on individuals without a constitutional amendment.

The prohibition was originally adopted by Florida voters on November 4, 1924, and was carried forward in the 1968 constitutional revision that produced the current Florida Constitution. The provision applies only to "natural persons"—that is, individual human beings. It does not apply to corporations or other artificial entities, which remain subject to Florida's corporate income tax under Chapter 220 of the Florida Statutes. Florida Statutes § 220.02(2) explicitly confirms this constitutional mandate, stating that the corporate income tax code "is not intended to tax, and shall not be construed so as to tax, any natural person" operating a trade, business, or profession, including sole proprietors, partners in partnerships, or members of pass-through LLCs.

Because Florida does not impose a personal income tax on individuals, there are no administrative procedures—such as notice of deficiency, protest deadlines, administrative appeals, statutes of limitation, or voluntary disclosure programs—that apply to personal income tax in Florida. Florida residents and part-year residents are subject only to federal income tax on their individual income.

Florida's constitutional prohibition on individual income tax can be amended only by a vote of the electorate. Any proposed constitutional amendment to impose or authorize a personal income tax would require approval by sixty percent of voters in a statewide referendum, in accordance with the amendment procedures set forth in Article XI, Section 5(e) of the Florida Constitution.

Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 5(a) Source: Fla. Stat. § 220.02(2) Source: Fla. Const. art. XI, § 5(e)

No natural person — resident, part-year resident, or nonresident — is required to file a Florida personal income tax return. Florida's constitutional prohibition on taxing the income of natural persons means the state has no individual income tax return forms, filing deadlines, or reporting obligations for personal income from any source, including wages, self-employment income, investment income, retirement distributions, or income earned in other states.

Individuals who move to or from Florida mid-year do not file a Florida part-year resident return. Those who earn income while physically present in Florida but domiciled elsewhere likewise have no Florida filing obligation. Florida's prohibition applies uniformly regardless of the source, amount, or location of income earned by a natural person.

Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 5(a) and Fla. Stat. § 220.02(2)

Florida's prohibition on personal income tax is enshrined in Article VII, Section 5(a) of the Florida Constitution and can only be changed by constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters. The prohibition on taxing the income of natural persons originated in a November 4, 1924 constitutional amendment and has remained in effect through successive Florida Constitutions, including the current Constitution adopted in 1968. Article VII, Section 5(a) prohibits the state, or any entity acting under its authority, from levying any tax upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens in excess of amounts allowed as credits or deductions against similar federal or state taxes. Because the federal government no longer offers credits for state income taxes paid, this provision effectively bars Florida from imposing any personal income tax.

The 1924 amendment and the 1968 Constitution

Florida voters adopted the original constitutional prohibition against personal income and inheritance taxes on November 4, 1924. That prohibition was carried forward in the 1968 Constitution, which reorganized and revised Florida's constitutional structure but preserved the income-tax ban in Article VII, Section 5. At the time the 1968 Constitution took effect, the prohibition applied to all "residents or citizens" without distinguishing between natural persons and corporations.

The 1971 amendment — corporate income tax

In In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 243 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1971), the Florida Supreme Court held that the term "residents or citizens" in Article VII, Section 5 of the 1968 Constitution included corporations, meaning the prohibition barred both individual and corporate income taxes. To permit the state to impose a corporate income tax, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment on November 2, 1971 (H.J.R. 7-B). That amendment modified Article VII, Section 5 by adding the words "natural persons who are" to subsection (a)—limiting the prohibition to individuals—and creating a new subsection (b) authorizing a corporate income tax. The Florida Legislature then enacted Chapter 220 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Corporate Income Tax Code, effective January 1, 1972.

The personal-income-tax prohibition in subsection (a) has remained in place since 1924. Any constitutional amendment to impose or authorize a personal income tax on individuals would require approval by sixty percent of voters in a statewide election, in accordance with the amendment procedures set forth in Article XI, Section 5(e) of the Florida Constitution.

Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 5(a) Source: In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 243 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1971) Source: Fla. Stat. § 220.02 Source: Fla. Const. art. XI, § 5(e)

Florida employers are not required to withhold state income tax from employee wages because Florida does not impose a personal income tax. The constitutional prohibition on taxing natural persons' income means there is no Florida withholding system, no state W-2 reporting for income tax purposes, and no employer withholding registration with the Florida Department of Revenue for personal income tax. Employers must still withhold federal income tax, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from employee paychecks, and Florida separately imposes a reemployment tax (unemployment insurance) on employers, but that tax is not withheld from employee wages.

Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 5(a) and Fla. Stat. § 220.02(2)

Florida's constitutional prohibition on taxing the income of natural persons means Florida will never impose state income tax on an individual, regardless of where that income is earned or where the individual is domiciled. However, other states apply their own residency tests and source-income rules. An individual who lives in Florida may still owe income tax to another state under two distinct theories: residency taxation (when the other state treats the individual as a resident under its own statutory-residency or domicile test) and nonresident source-income taxation (when the individual earns income the other state characterizes as sourced within its borders).

Florida domicile—the intent to make Florida one's permanent home—does not control whether another state treats the individual as a resident. States such as New York, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts each impose statutory-residency tests that tax individuals on worldwide income if they maintain a permanent place of abode in that state for a specified portion of the year and spend more than a threshold number of days there, even when domiciled elsewhere. Whether an individual has established Florida domicile is irrelevant to the application of these statutory-residency tests; those tests operate independently.

Separately, even an individual with no residence and no days in another state may owe nonresident income tax to that state on income sourced there. Wages are generally sourced to the state where services are performed; rental income is sourced to the state where the property is located; pass-through income from partnerships, S corporations, and LLCs is generally sourced to the states where the entity does business. Federal law preempts state taxation of certain retirement income paid to nonresidents, but that protection does not extend to wages, rental income, or most other income types.

The sections that follow address specific primary-source rules from states that frequently assert residency or source-income claims against individuals living in Florida.

Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 5(a)

Under New York Tax Law § 605(b)(1)(B), an individual who is not domiciled in New York is nevertheless taxed as a New York resident if two conditions are both satisfied during the taxable year.

The two-prong test

New York imposes resident tax treatment—taxation of worldwide income—on any individual who:

1. Maintains a permanent place of abode in New York for substantially all of the taxable year, AND
2. Spends more than 183 days of the taxable year in New York.

Both prongs must be met. The test applies "whether or not domiciled in this state for any portion of the taxable year," meaning that an individual whose domicile lies elsewhere—such as Florida—may still be classified and taxed as a New York resident if the permanent-place-of-abode and day-count conditions are both satisfied.

Substantially all — the 10-month rule for 2022 forward

The statute itself does not define "substantially all of the taxable year" in numerical terms; the phrase appears in § 605(b)(1)(B) without further elaboration. For decades, administrative guidance interpreted "substantially all" to mean a period exceeding eleven months. In December 2021, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance released revised Nonresident Audit Guidelines that changed this interpretation. Beginning with tax years starting in 2022, the Audit Guidelines define "substantially all of the year" to generally mean a period exceeding 10 months. For tax years prior to 2022, the threshold was a period exceeding 11 months.

The Guidelines state that the 10-month rule applies when a taxpayer either acquires or disposes of a residence during the taxable year. The Guidelines also provide that the same permanent place of abode need not be maintained for the entire period; two or more residences maintained sequentially during the year can be combined to meet the threshold. For example, an individual who rents an apartment in Brooklyn until June 30 and then rents another apartment in Westchester from July 1 through the end of the year maintains a permanent place of abode for substantially all of the taxable year under this rule.

Note on conflicting guidance: As of April 2026, the Department's Permanent Place of Abode bulletin (Tax Bulletin TB-IT-690) still states that "you maintain a permanent place of abode for substantially all of the tax year if you maintain it for more than eleven months during the year." This bulletin has not been updated to reflect the December 2021 change in the Nonresident Audit Guidelines. Practitioners should be aware that the Audit Guidelines—which govern audit practice—currently apply the 10-month threshold for tax years 2022 forward, while the public-facing bulletin has not been revised to match.

Day count

The 183-day threshold is measured in the aggregate across the entire taxable year. A "day" means any part of a day; the statute does not require an overnight stay. An individual present in New York for any portion of a calendar day is treated as spending a day in New York for purposes of the 183-day test.

Exemption

The statute carves out one express exemption: individuals "in active service in the armed forces of the United States" are not subject to statutory-resident treatment under this provision.

An individual classified as a resident under this test is taxed on worldwide income for the full taxable year, applying the same New York tax rates and rules as an individual domiciled in New York.

Source: N.Y. Tax Law § 605(b)(1)(B) Source: Nonresident Audit Guidelines (December 2021), p. 49 Source: Tax Bulletin TB-IT-690, Permanent Place of Abode (updated April 7, 2026)

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance defines a permanent place of abode as a residence (a building or structure where a person can live) that the taxpayer permanently maintains, whether or not owned by the taxpayer, and that is suitable for year-round use. Ownership or a lease in the taxpayer's name is not required; the dwelling may be owned or leased by the taxpayer's spouse or another person. A structure that is not suitable for year-round use and that the taxpayer uses only for vacations is not a permanent place of abode.

In Matter of Obus v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 2022 NY Slip Op 04206 (App. Div. 3d Dep't June 30, 2022), the Appellate Division held that a vacation home in Northville, New York, owned by New Jersey domiciliaries, was not a permanent place of abode because the taxpayers did not use the dwelling as a residence. The taxpayers used the home for at most three weeks per year for skiing and visits to the Saratoga racetrack, kept no personal effects in the home, and brought only what they needed for each visit. A year-round tenant occupied an attached apartment. The court found that the taxpayers had not utilized the dwelling in a manner demonstrating a residential interest in the property, and therefore, even though the home was physically suitable for year-round use, it did not constitute a permanent place of abode within the meaning of New York Tax Law § 605.

Source: New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Permanent Place of Abode

Source: Matter of Obus v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 2022 NY Slip Op 04206 (App. Div. 3d Dep't June 30, 2022)

Florida residents who earn income connected to New York State may owe New York nonresident income tax on that income, even though Florida imposes no state personal income tax. The New York Department of Taxation and Finance defines New York source income for nonresidents to include three principal categories: wages sourced to where services are performed, rental income sourced to property location, and pass-through entity income sourced to where the entity does business.

Wages and compensation

Wages, salaries, fees, commissions, bonuses, and tips are treated as New York source income to the extent they represent services a nonresident performed in New York State. The Department's instructions for Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return, direct nonresidents to report "that part of the federal amount that represents services you performed in New York State as a nonresident." The withholding-tax guidance similarly provides that New York State withholding applies to "New York State nonresidents being paid wages for services performed within the state."

Services performed outside New York—including remote work performed from Florida for a New York employer—are generally not New York source income under the basic sourcing rule. However, New York applies a special "convenience of the employer" rule, codified at 20 NYCRR 132.18(a), that treats a nonresident employee's wages as New York source income even when the work is performed entirely outside the state if the out-of-state work location was for the employee's convenience rather than the employer's necessity. This rule and its bona fide employer office exception are explained in detail in the next section (New York convenience-of-the-employer rule).

Rental income from real property

Rental income is sourced to the location of the property. The IT-203 instructions state that nonresidents must include "rents and royalties from real property located in New York State, whether or not used in connection with a business." The Department's nonresident FAQ confirms that New York source income includes "income from real property located in the state." A Florida resident who owns rental property in New York must report that rental income as New York source income and file Form IT-203 if the income (together with any other New York source income) exceeds the New York standard deduction.

Pass-through entity income (partnership, S corporation, LLC)

Income from a partnership, S corporation, or LLC treated as a partnership is sourced to where the entity carries on business. The IT-203 partnership-allocation instructions explain that a nonresident partner's distributive share of income is New York source income to the extent the partnership "carries on a business, trade, profession, or occupation" in New York State. The partnership computes a business allocation percentage and reports the nonresident partner's New York-source distributive share on Form IT-204-IP. The instructions for Form IT-204 state that "the source and character of each item that partnership A received from partnership B retains the source and character determined at the level of partnership B," preserving multi-tier sourcing. The Department emphasizes that even a partnership that is not itself "carrying on business in New York" may have New York source income if it receives distributive shares from a lower-tier partnership that does business in New York. A Florida resident who is a partner in a New York partnership, or in an out-of-state partnership that does business in New York, must report the New York-source distributive share as New York source income.

The Department's nonresident FAQ page states that nonresidents "only pay tax on New York source income, which includes earnings from work performed in New York State, and income from real property located in the state." Florida residents with New York source income above the applicable standard deduction must file Form IT-203, even if their only connection to New York is investment or employment income sourced under these rules.

Source: Frequently Asked Questions about Filing Requirements, Residency, and Telecommuting for New York State Personal Income Tax Source: 2025 Instructions for Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return Source: Withholding tax requirements Source: Instructions for Form IT-204 Partnership Return Tax Year 2025

A Florida resident who works remotely from Florida for a New York employer may owe New York nonresident income tax on wages from that employer under New York's "convenience of the employer" rule codified at 20 NYCRR 132.18(a). The rule treats days worked remotely from an out-of-state location as if they were worked in New York unless the remote work is performed out of the employer's necessity rather than the employee's convenience.

The regulatory foundation — necessity versus convenience

New York Tax Law § 631(b)(2) taxes nonresidents on income "derived from or connected with New York sources," including income from a "business, trade, profession or occupation carried on" in New York. Under 20 NYCRR 132.18(a), a nonresident employee who performs services both inside and outside New York allocates wage income based on a workday ratio: the number of days worked in New York divided by total workdays. However, the regulation imposes a critical limitation on that allocation formula:

> "any allowance claimed for days worked outside New York State must be based upon the performance of services which of necessity, as distinguished from convenience, obligate the employee to out-of-state duties in the service of his employer."

This "necessity versus convenience" test reverses the normal sourcing rule for remote workdays. A nonresident employee whose assigned or primary work location is in New York, but who works remotely from Florida, may not claim an allocation to Florida for those remote workdays unless the employee can demonstrate that the employer—not the employee—required the out-of-state work location out of business necessity. The full text of the regulation and the Department's interpretation are set forth in TSB-M-06(5)I, the Department's May 15, 2006 memorandum explaining the convenience of the employer test.

What the test means in practice

The convenience test is highly restrictive. The New York Department of Taxation and Finance applies the test to treat remote workdays as New York workdays unless the nature of the employment duties themselves requires the out-of-state location. TSB-M-06(5)I states:

> "normal work days spent at home are considered days worked in New York State, and days spent working outside New York State at the employer's requirement are allocated to the outside location."

The Department's guidance further provides that remote work is performed out of the employer's necessity only if the duties "by their very nature, cannot be performed at the employer's place of business" or if the employer has established a "bona fide employer office" at the remote location. A general employer preference for remote work, or a policy allowing employees to work from home, does not satisfy the necessity test.

Under this framework, a Florida resident who works entirely from Florida for a New York employer will typically allocate zero days to the normal New York workday count (because the employee was never physically present in New York), but those remote Florida workdays are then re-characterized as New York source income under the convenience rule unless the bona fide employer office exception applies.

The "bona fide employer office" exception

TSB-M-06(5)I provides that a home office or other remote location outside New York can qualify as a bona fide employer office if the employer has taken affirmative steps to establish it as such. The guidance lists several factors that support bona fide employer office status:

• The employer requires the home office as a condition of employment. A written employment contract or documented employer directive stating that the employee must work from the remote location to perform specific duties supports this factor. TSB-M-06(5)I provides the example of a contract stating "the employee must work from home to perform specific duties for the employer."

• The home office contains or is near specialized facilities. If the employee's duties require specialized facilities, equipment, or resources that are not available at the employer's New York office but are available at or near the employee's home, this factor is met. TSB-M-06(5)I gives the example of a test track for testing new cars or specialized scientific equipment set up at the employee's home.

• The employer has a business necessity for the employee to maintain the home office. The guidance states that the home office must meet "a business necessity of the employer," not merely the employer's general preference or the employee's convenience.

• The employer reimburses substantially all home-office expenses. Reimbursement of utilities, office supplies, and workspace costs supports bona fide employer office status, though reimbursement alone is not determinative.

The Department's guidance states that these factors are evaluated cumulatively. In practice, a remote location is rarely treated as a bona fide employer office unless the employer has documented the necessity for the remote arrangement and the employee's duties genuinely cannot be performed at the New York office.

Application to Florida residents working remotely for New York employers

A Florida resident who accepts a position with a New York employer and performs all duties remotely from Florida—never physically working in New York during the tax year—will owe New York nonresident income tax on the wages if the employer's office or business location is in New York, the employer has not established a bona fide employer office in Florida, and the remote work arrangement is characterized as for the employee's convenience. The fact that the employer "allows" or "encourages" remote work, or that a remote-work policy is documented in a handbook, does not shift the arrangement from convenience to necessity under the Department's interpretation of the regulation.

The Department's nonresident FAQ page (last updated October 19, 2020) states: "If you are a nonresident whose primary office is in New York State, your days telecommuting during the pandemic are considered days worked in New York State unless your employer has established a bona fide employer office at your telecommuting location." This guidance was issued in response to COVID-19 and confirms that the convenience rule applies even when employees are required to work from home due to office closures.

Constitutional status

The convenience of the employer rule has been challenged on Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause grounds. In Zelinsky v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 1 N.Y.3d 85 (2003), the New York Court of Appeals upheld the regulation against a constitutional challenge brought by a Connecticut-resident professor who worked from home for a New York law school. The court held that the rule does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Commerce Clause, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2004. That decision remains controlling precedent in New York as of June 2026.

Filing obligations

A Florida resident with New York source income under the convenience rule must file New York Form IT-203 (Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return) and allocate the relevant wage income to New York. The allocation is reported on Schedule A of Form IT-203. The Florida resident remains subject to no Florida personal income tax under Article VII, Section 5(a) of the Florida Constitution, but the New York nonresident liability is independent of Florida's prohibition.

Source: N.Y. Tax Law § 631(b)(2) Source: TSB-M-06(5)I, Application of the Convenience of the Employer Test to Telecommuters and Others (May 15, 2006) Source: Frequently Asked Questions about Filing Requirements, Residency, and Telecommuting for New York State Personal Income Tax (updated October 19, 2020) Source: Zelinsky v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 1 N.Y.3d 85 (2003)

Federal law prohibits any state from imposing income tax on the retirement income of an individual who is not a resident or domiciliary of that state, as determined under the laws of that state. This preemption rule is codified at 4 U.S.C. § 114(a).

The statute defines "retirement income" to mean income from nine enumerated categories of retirement vehicles:

(A) a qualified trust under IRC § 401(a) that is exempt under IRC § 501(a) from taxation;

(B) a simplified employee pension as defined in IRC § 408(k);

(C) an annuity plan described in IRC § 403(a);

(D) an annuity contract described in IRC § 403(b);

(E) an individual retirement plan described in IRC § 7701(a)(37);

(F) an eligible deferred compensation plan as defined in IRC § 457;

(G) a governmental plan as defined in IRC § 414(d);

(H) a trust described in IRC § 501(c)(18); or

(I) any plan, program, or arrangement described in IRC § 3121(v)(2)(C), or any plan, program, or arrangement that is in writing, that provides for retirement payments in recognition of prior service to be made to a retired partner, and that is in effect immediately before retirement begins, if the income meets the statutory conditions for substantially equal periodic payments set forth in 4 U.S.C. § 114(b)(1)(I).

The term also includes retired or retainer pay of a member or former member of a uniformed service computed under chapter 71 of title 10, United States Code.

Source: 4 U.S.C. § 114

Florida's constitutional prohibition on taxing the income of natural persons applies at all levels of government—state, county, and municipal. No city, county, or other local government in Florida may impose an income tax on individuals.

Article VII, Section 5(a) of the Florida Constitution prohibits the state, "or under its authority," from levying any tax upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens in excess of amounts that may be credited or deducted from similar federal or state taxes. The phrase "or under its authority" extends the prohibition to all subordinate governmental entities operating under state authority, including counties, municipalities, and special districts.

Separately, Article VII, Section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution provides that "no tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law" and that "all other forms of taxation"—meaning all taxes other than ad valorem taxes on real estate and tangible personal property—"shall be preempted to the state except as provided by general law." Under this structure, local governments possess no inherent taxing authority; they may impose only those taxes explicitly authorized by general law. No Florida general law authorizes local governments to impose an income tax on individuals.

Florida counties and municipalities do impose other revenue measures authorized by statute. Chapter 205 of the Florida Statutes authorizes counties and municipalities to levy a local business tax (formerly called an "occupational license tax"), which is a flat fee or percentage charge for the privilege of engaging in a business, profession, or occupation within the jurisdiction. Chapter 202 authorizes local communications services taxes. These are not income taxes; they do not tax the income of natural persons and they are separately authorized by statute for specific purposes. A Florida resident or part-year resident has no local personal income tax filing obligation and no local income tax withholding obligation in any Florida jurisdiction.

Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 5(a) Source: Fla. Const. art. VII, § 1(a) Source: Fla. Stat. ch. 205 (Local Business Taxes)