For today’s blog entry, I present four trends in domestic mobility compliance from the NASPP’s recent quick survey on this topic.
1. When it comes to domestically mobile employees, company compliance procedures lag behind compliance for globally mobile employees.
Only 54% of respondents to the quick survey source income for domestically mobile employees; among respondents to the NASPP’s 2018 Global Incentive Survey, sourcing of income was much more common, closer to 80% of the overall respondents for employees who are in a formal assignee program.
2. Except for business travelers—hardly anyone is on top of compliance for business travelers.
Only a quarter of respondents to our 2018 global survey even track business travelers. In the quick survey, only about 17% of the overall respondents source income for business travelers.
3. Companies are most likely to source income for employees who transfer to another state on an indefinite basis and for executives.
Of those companies that source income between states for domestically mobile employees, 84% do so for state-to-state transfers and 57% do so for executives, compared to only 46% for state-to-state assignees, 32% for business travelers, and 20% for sales employees.
Compliance for state-to-state assignees may be lower because some companies may not have a domestic assignee program (companies that don’t have state-to-state assignees obviously don’t source income for them).
4. Most companies do not provide any support for domestically mobile employees.
Companies with more employees were more likely to provide support (52% of companies with over 10,000 employees provided support for mobile employees vs. just 39% overall).
Where support is provided for mobile employees, it is most commonly in the form of tax return preparation, tax consultation, and tax equalization.
Check out the full results of the quick survey.