|
Home > Archive > Medicine transcription > April 2005 > IC vs employee
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| DH pointed me to an interesting article in the paper a couple of days
ago. Apparently, the wonderful State of Maine is now on a mission re
ICs. The situation outlined was a flooring company who, during busy
times, hires subcontractors to lay flooring for them. These subs have
their own tools, etc. The state says that because they are told where to
go to work, they are employees (like it would be okay to just try to
guess which building in the whole state needed the floor put in). Being
hit with back unemployment to tune of like 10 grand. I believe they've
hired an attorney to try to fight this. Seems that it's only the sole
props they are going after. Seems ludicrous to me, as it's pretty easy
to get a D/B/A yet still be doing all the work yourself. I understand
some businesses try to use ICs to save money and are "cheating" the
state, but it sure seems to me that unless that SP is working only for
them, on their premises, etc., this is way out of hand. One of the ICs
mentioned also did similar work for four or five other businesses.
Then, what about stores like Home Depot, Sears, etc., who subcontract
installation work for things like hot water heaters, etc. Pretty much
the same thing it seems to me.
Makes me glad I'm not using subs, but I"m really afraid for one of my
friends locally
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| RaeMorrill <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:hZ16e.1084$b92.781@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> DH pointed me to an interesting article in the paper a couple of days
> ago. Apparently, the wonderful State of Maine is now on a mission re
> ICs. The situation outlined was a flooring company who, during busy
> times, hires subcontractors to lay flooring for them. These subs have
> their own tools, etc. The state says that because they are told where to
> go to work, they are employees (like it would be okay to just try to
> guess which building in the whole state needed the floor put in). Being
> hit with back unemployment to tune of like 10 grand. I believe they've
> hired an attorney to try to fight this. Seems that it's only the sole
> props they are going after. Seems ludicrous to me, as it's pretty easy
> to get a D/B/A yet still be doing all the work yourself. I understand
> some businesses try to use ICs to save money and are "cheating" the
> state, but it sure seems to me that unless that SP is working only for
> them, on their premises, etc., this is way out of hand. One of the ICs
> mentioned also did similar work for four or five other businesses.
>
> Then, what about stores like Home Depot, Sears, etc., who subcontract
> installation work for things like hot water heaters, etc. Pretty much
> the same thing it seems to me.
>
> Makes me glad I'm not using subs, but I"m really afraid for one of my
> friends locally
>
That's just crazy! Keep us updated on the way that case turns out. I can
see it now..
okay...there's a blue house somewhere in x town that needs carpet ripped up
and new wood put in, new baseboards, shoe moulding, the works. Roll the
dice and pick a house...any house...and hope you get it right. That's just
nuts!!
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| It is nuts but it is going to cause some serious headaches for a lot of
people.
Jeannie Wilson wrote:
> RaeMorrill <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:hZ16e.1084$b92.781@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
>
>
>
>
> That's just crazy! Keep us updated on the way that case turns out. I can
> see it now..
>
> okay...there's a blue house somewhere in x town that needs carpet ripped up
> and new wood put in, new baseboards, shoe moulding, the works. Roll the
> dice and pick a house...any house...and hope you get it right. That's just
> nuts!!
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| It is nuts but it is going to cause some serious headaches for a lot of
people.
Maybe, maybe not. If just a few people win a successful challenge to
this, the state will probably back off because it's not worth their
time to pursue. There is certainly a lot of abuse of the definition of
an IC, but I've had plenty of independent contractors coming to my
house to do work on the kitchen, that just seems a stupid reason to go
after a business. People aren't going to stop using ICs because of
something like this.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| Not everyone can afford to fight it. What should happen (IMHO) is that a
bunch of these targeted folks get together and hire an attorney. From my
point of view, the situation with the flooring companies is a lot more
clearly IC than most, if not all, MT situations.
Gisele wrote:
> It is nuts but it is going to cause some serious headaches for a lot of
>
> people.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. If just a few people win a successful challenge to
> this, the state will probably back off because it's not worth their
> time to pursue. There is certainly a lot of abuse of the definition of
> an IC, but I've had plenty of independent contractors coming to my
> house to do work on the kitchen, that just seems a stupid reason to go
> after a business. People aren't going to stop using ICs because of
> something like this.
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
|
RaeMorrill wrote:
> Not everyone can afford to fight it.
No everyone will have to fight it.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| Guess I don't follow you. One small concern tried to appeal it and got
no where so just paid the 300 bucks they owed.
Gisele wrote:
> RaeMorrill wrote:
>
>
>
> No everyone will have to fight it.
>
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| <<Seems that it's only the sole props they are going after>>
Of course. They are the ones not paying unemployment insurance. The
IRS and the state of Georgia are cracking down on S corporations. They
are insisting that single shareholder S corps put that single
shareholder on payroll and pay the appropriate payroll taxes, including
the FUTA (federal unemployment) and SUTA (state unemployment). I guess
with unemployment being as high as it has been the past few years, it
has depleted any surplus of funds there may have been.
I know that insurance companies, particularly those who handle Work
Comp for construction related businesses, have cracked down on
requiring their customers to use subs who are covered by Work Comp on
their own. Or to cover them through the customer. I spoke at length
with a painting contractor the other day and they have switched to
using subs who are incorporated and can prove they have Work Comp on
all their employees. They got nailed by the insurance company with a
huge bill after an audit showed they were using uninsured subs.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| Guess I don't follow you. One small concern tried to appeal it and got
no where so just paid the 300 bucks they owed.
This is not enough to make everyone who uses subs to go out and
reclassify their workers.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| That was the one who settled. The other profiled was 10,000 dollars.
That's not pocket change to a small outfit. And it was a company using
many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of businesses.
Gisele wrote:
> Guess I don't follow you. One small concern tried to appeal it and got
> no where so just paid the 300 bucks they owed.
>
> This is not enough to make everyone who uses subs to go out and
> reclassify their workers.
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:29 pm |
| And it was a company using
many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
businesses.
And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
| |
|
| > And it was a company using
> many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
> businesses.
>
> And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
>
Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of compliance,
they will.
Sandi
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of
compliance,
they will.
Perhaps the people really are subcontractors?
| |
|
| > Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of
> compliance,
> they will.
>
> Perhaps the people really are subcontractors?
>
Well, apparently they were found not to be, and if there's one thing I've
learned from working on federal cases, it's that if the government gets you
on its radar, life gets fairly difficult.
I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but will
only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar or
another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
Sandi
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
|
I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but
will
only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar
or
another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
I don't doubt that, I just don't believe that the answer to this
problem is to never have subs. If I had to turn my subs into
employees, I would probably just fold the business. Is that what the
government wants?
| |
|
| > I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but
> will
> only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar
> or
> another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
>
> I don't doubt that, I just don't believe that the answer to this
> problem is to never have subs. If I had to turn my subs into
> employees, I would probably just fold the business. Is that what the
> government wants?
>
What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at least in
Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be out by doing
this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how worker's comp could
be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know how that works. I'm not
trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always have
been. Where's the huge expense?
Sandi
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| I'm not
trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always
have
been. Where's the huge expense?
There is more accounting to be done with employees than with subs. I
would have to hire a bookkeeper, and that would be the end of my
profits. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. If you think 7.5% is
nothing, then I guess you should have employees.
| |
|
| > I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always
> have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> There is more accounting to be done with employees than with subs. I
> would have to hire a bookkeeper, and that would be the end of my
> profits. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. If you think 7.5% is
> nothing, then I guess you should have employees.
>
If I ever hire anyone, I will. I don't think it's nothing; I don't harbor
any delusions that it blows the entire profit margin, either. Sorry, I
didn't mean to make you defensive; I genuinely wanted to know.
Sandi
| |
|
| P.S. I did the bookkeeping and payroll for an office full (10-15) of
transcription employees. It wasn't that big a deal, couple of extra hours a
pay period.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Gisele,
I didn't post this to be argumentative or for any reason but to point
out what a state can do should it get a hair across its XXX. The point
of my post was that if this state starts pulling this for what to most
people's way of thinking (and certainly to those targeted here) they
were operating clearly inside the law. If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control. IOW, if all
states start pulling this, every single MTSO I I've ever heard of using
subs could find themselves hit with huge assessments for back
unemployment (or other) payments. I've long felt that if an MTSO has
subs only outside her own state it may be safer, as her own state
wouldn't be the one hit with the unemployment claim (which apparently
this state feels is going to be filed).
It was meant to be a red flag. The state doesn't care whether you and
your subs have an agreement. They rule, then you have to prove them
wrong - at no small expense. If this isn't an issue in your state, I
guess it isn't a problem. However, those targeted here also felt very
sure they were utilizing ICs legally.
Gisele wrote:
> And it was a company using
> many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
> businesses.
>
> And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Thing was by all rational thinking, this company was compliant. The subs
worked independently and had other clients, their own tools, showed up
on their own schedule, etc. The trigger was they TOLD THE SUBS WHERE THE
JOB WAS.
Sandi wrote:
>
> Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of compliance,
> they will.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Did you read the original story. They were really subcontractors by all
but the grasping at straws all of the sudden by the state. Much more so
real subcontractors than most MTs I hear of subbing!
Gisele wrote:
> Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of
> compliance,
> they will.
>
> Perhaps the people really are subcontractors?
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Bingo! We don't care who it hurts or if it strangles small businesses.
For MTs I think it is often the ongoing relationship. Impossible to
avoid. What doctor, hospital, or MTSO wants to hire a new MT or service
every week or month?
Sandi wrote:
<snip>
> I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but will
> only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar or
> another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| If I ever hire anyone, I will. I don't think it's nothing; I don't
harbor
any delusions that it blows the entire profit margin, either. Sorry, I
didn't mean to make you defensive
I'm certainly not defensive about any decisions regarding the way I run
my business. You asked a question and I answered it, that's all. When
you run your own business, of course you get to make those decisions.
| |
|
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3bu5lgF6kqlqmU1@individual.net:
> What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at
> least in Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be
> out by doing this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how
> worker's comp could be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know
> how that works. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely
> curious about this and always have been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> Sandi
>
>
>
Books are a PITA to keep straight with employees. If you can afford an
accountant, fine. I had employees when I was an MTSO. My sister worked
for an accounting firm. I chose to pay that firm to do our books, but I
did everything up to the actual figuring of taxes, FICA, etc. etc. etc.
It was just more trouble than it was worth to do it on my own.
Expenses are not that high, but it's a drag to have to write those checks
to the government - feds and state and local for some things.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donna
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Yes, I did read the story, but who is a subcontractor and who is an
employee is not up to you. I understand that the state is trying to
collect what money they can, I just don't think it's going to have
enough impact to get a whole lot of workers reclassified.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| What about worker's comp, etc., and other employee benefits like
vacation, sick time, etc. SOme are not mandated, but most employees are
looking for something like that, including insurance coverage. I still
don't get the issue as far as I know you can't even get unemployment on
yourself as a sole proprietor (could be wrong), and I don't think you
can get Worker's Comp either as an SP.
Sandi wrote:
>
> What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at least in
> Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be out by doing
> this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how worker's comp could
> be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know how that works. I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling
them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control.
I didn't think you were being argumentative by posting this. I don't
agree with your point relating the floor contractors to MTs. If my
state disagrees with me, of course I have to pay the penalty. Of
course you can avoid the headache if you simply do all the work
yourself. Not many MTSOs are going to turn back the clock to doing
only the work that they themselves can do. The world will still keep
turning. That was MY point, and my only point.
| |
| Maureen Galvin 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Wouldn't you just make an adjustment to the line rate to compensate for the
7.5% you have to pay? There cant really be too much to complain about
either on their end as if you did not pay it, the IC has to pay it so either
way it is getting paid.
I just keep going back to the days when my DH worked out of the union hall
and had a different "employer" every day or so. They may have only worked 8
hours for one company out of the year, but we got W-2s at the end of the
year from all of them. They worked like ICs having to supply their own
tools, and agree to the terms of the job. - Start at 6:00 AM and work until
the job is done be it noon or 6:00 PM. They could take it or leave it.
Maybe I'm missing something, is there some other additional costs, besides
the additional time with bookkeeping?
Maureen
"Gisele" <Gdubson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113187908.954916.203070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always
> have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> There is more accounting to be done with employees than with subs. I
> would have to hire a bookkeeper, and that would be the end of my
> profits. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. If you think 7.5% is
> nothing, then I guess you should have employees.
>
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| It costs, in Georgia, an average of $285.00 a year in unemployment
taxes PER EMPLOYEE. If you have a lower SUTA rate it wouldn't even be
that much. That, IMO, isn't a huge amount to pay in order to keep
things above-board. Then there is the 7.5% matching FICA.
As Gisele pointed out, there is more accounting involved, but it does
not take a bookkeeper or an accountant to do it. Most accounting
programs such as Quickbooks can help you do payroll, even to the point
of printing out W2s, W3s, 1099s, 1096s and 941s.
All these costs are just part of doing business and are, IMHO, a small
price to pay for not having to worry about whether or not the DOL will
determine your "subs" are actually employees. You treat them like
employees by telling them what to do and when, then you should pay the
price of having that right.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:3bu80rF6io65dU1@individual.net:
> P.S. I did the bookkeeping and payroll for an office full (10-15) of
> transcription employees. It wasn't that big a deal, couple of extra
> hours a pay period.
Did you handle all of the tax payments, etc.? I always hated that part of
handling payroll.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| "Maureen Galvin" <maureen.galvin@comcast.dot.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:4v2dnaFdyPaNncffRVn-gg@comcast.com:
> Maybe I'm missing something, is there some other additional costs,
> besides the additional time with bookkeeping?
In my experience it wasn't only the additional time with bookkeeping but
also the additional taxes paid (portions of the employee tax, etc.),
worker's comp insurance, etc. Of course, it's been many years since I last
did the payroll for anyone.
| |
|
| > > P.S. I did the bookkeeping and payroll for an office full (10-15) of
>
> Did you handle all of the tax payments, etc.? I always hated that part of
> handling payroll.
Yes, I did. It wasn't what I'd call fun, but if you're paying people as
contractors, I don't think it adds so much work as to destroy the profit
margin, either.
When I asked about what the big deal was, I assumed there was some huge
expense I was missing; I know now there's not.
Sandi
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:3bvc45F6iekljU1@individual.net:
> Yes, I did. It wasn't what I'd call fun, but if you're paying people as
> contractors, I don't think it adds so much work as to destroy the profit
> margin, either.
>
> When I asked about what the big deal was, I assumed there was some huge
> expense I was missing; I know now there's not.
I don't think it is a _huge_ expense unless you have to hire someone
specifically to do it. However, it is a big pain in the butt. I wasn't
trying to be sarcastic by asking if you did the taxes end of it, just
curious. I never minded the payroll part or anything that went with it
except for having to write out the checks for the taxes part. Maybe I was
always afraid I was going to screw them up or something. Then....came the
issue with having to garnish wages for child support, alimony, etc. That
was always a big pain in the butt too.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| You treat them like employees by telling them what to do and when, then
you should pay the price of having that right.
If they really are employees, then of course they should be classified
as such. My subs have the right to refuse to take work from me at any
time. They also can take work from other MTSOs. I understand that the
state and the feds can examine these relationships at any time.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| When I asked about what the big deal was, I assumed there was some huge
expense I was missing; I know now there's not.
I talked it over with my accountant last year, and we decided together
that it was not the way to go for my business. Again, when you run your
own business, you get to make those decisions.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Yeah, but if I am the "sub" I will not work as an employee as that will
mess up my bookkeeeping. I'd have to prorate business expenses, etc.
clj1219@aol.com wrote:
> It costs, in Georgia, an average of $285.00 a year in unemployment
> taxes PER EMPLOYEE. If you have a lower SUTA rate it wouldn't even be
> that much. That, IMO, isn't a huge amount to pay in order to keep
> things above-board. Then there is the 7.5% matching FICA.
>
> As Gisele pointed out, there is more accounting involved, but it does
> not take a bookkeeper or an accountant to do it. Most accounting
> programs such as Quickbooks can help you do payroll, even to the point
> of printing out W2s, W3s, 1099s, 1096s and 941s.
>
> All these costs are just part of doing business and are, IMHO, a small
> price to pay for not having to worry about whether or not the DOL will
> determine your "subs" are actually employees. You treat them like
> employees by telling them what to do and when, then you should pay the
> price of having that right.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Good points on the garnishments, etc. It would be a big pain. I just
don't think people should be forced to have to run a big business if
they don't want to. Is it really that the state is worried about
unemployment claims or do they just want to find any way they can to get
a few more dollars out of people after already wringing them dry with
taxes? It should be simple: Long as you agree to work as an IC, you
can't claim unemployment. Now if the store down the road is trying to
hire people in house as ICs, that's another story.
Jeannie Wilson wrote:
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:3bvc45F6iekljU1@individual.net:
>
>
>
>
> I don't think it is a _huge_ expense unless you have to hire someone
> specifically to do it. However, it is a big pain in the butt. I wasn't
> trying to be sarcastic by asking if you did the taxes end of it, just
> curious. I never minded the payroll part or anything that went with it
> except for having to write out the checks for the taxes part. Maybe I was
> always afraid I was going to screw them up or something. Then....came the
> issue with having to garnish wages for child support, alimony, etc. That
> was always a big pain in the butt too.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| These flooring contractors could also refuse work at any time. Fact is,
if Colorado happens to see this story and starts to think OH A WAY TO
GET MORE MONEY - you could be in the same position. I simply don't think
it's fair to penalize people retroactively when they've done all they
can. Jeannie has stated here many times she's questioned the DOL
extensively to assure herself she is within the law and has been told
she is. I don't know what SC laws say re IC vs employee, but if they got
this attitude I believe she and any other MTSO operating with subs would
be on the hot seat. After all we know that just because an IRS agent
tells you something it's true. You'll still owe the tax even if they
told you that you did not. I'd bet a state DOL would take the same approach.
Gisele wrote:
> You treat them like employees by telling them what to do and when, then
> you should pay the price of having that right.
>
> If they really are employees, then of course they should be classified
> as such. My subs have the right to refuse to take work from me at any
> time. They also can take work from other MTSOs. I understand that the
> state and the feds can examine these relationships at any time.
>
| |
|
| > I talked it over with my accountant last year, and we decided together
> that it was not the way to go for my business. Again, when you run your
> own business, you get to make those decisions.
>
Of course you do, until the state makes some of them for you. Just a
thought.
Sandi
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Fact is, if Colorado happens to see this story and starts to think OH A
WAY TO GET MORE MONEY - you could be in the same position.
If such a thing were to happen, I would have to deal with it.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-11, 5:30 pm |
| Here's the link to the actual article should anyone be interested. It
includs a link to Maine's ABC laws of determining IC vs employee. I
think most reasonable people would think the business targeted easily
passes muster. That's what is frightening to me. It won't affect me as I
am not using subs, but it could put some folks right out of business if
the assessed back payments were high enough.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/b...8flooring.shtml
Gisele wrote:
> Fact is, if Colorado happens to see this story and starts to think OH A
> WAY TO GET MORE MONEY - you could be in the same position.
>
> If such a thing were to happen, I would have to deal with it.
>
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-12, 11:15 am |
| <<If telling someone the location of the job being subbed is can
constitute "control," surely telling them that transcribing Dr. Jones'
tape from X date is control>>
That's exactly the point! It IS control. Control can be in so many
different forms, even the "employer" may not realize they are
controlling.
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-12, 11:15 am |
| << I still don't get the issue as far as I know you can't even get
unemployment on yourself as a sole proprietor (could be wrong)>>
Not in Georgia. However, if you were a single shareholder S
corporation you could collect unemployment!
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-12, 11:15 am |
| Then there is no such thing as a subcontractor ever, which is just plum
ridiculous. Taking it to that length means if I hire a painter to paint
my house who was advertising locally I may wind up paying his SS tax.
You certainly have the right to tell them what work you need done,
regardless of whether it is raking the lawn or what color to paint which
room.
I agree to provide transcription service for X work regularly. My desire
to do so. I'm not told what style to use, what program, etc. If I need
to take a day off I do so. Of course I do notify my MTSO ahead of time.
Conversely, I expect her to notify me if she doesn't want me to do the
work. In fact, there have been times she decides she wants to do it.
I've said well that's okay, but really no different than if I just
decide some morning not to do Dr. X today. Works both ways. Truth be
told, I set more limits on my MTSOs than they set on me. Guess that
means I am their employer?
clj1219@aol.com wrote:
> <<If telling someone the location of the job being subbed is can
> constitute "control," surely telling them that transcribing Dr. Jones'
> tape from X date is control>>
>
> That's exactly the point! It IS control. Control can be in so many
> different forms, even the "employer" may not realize they are
> controlling.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-12, 11:15 am |
| So, you're saying you could fire yourself and collect? LOL
clj1219@aol.com wrote:
> << I still don't get the issue as far as I know you can't even get
> unemployment on yourself as a sole proprietor (could be wrong)>>
>
> Not in Georgia. However, if you were a single shareholder S
> corporation you could collect unemployment!
>
| |
| Sandi 2005-04-12, 11:15 am |
| > Then there is no such thing as a subcontractor ever, which is just plum
> ridiculous. Taking it to that length means if I hire a painter to paint
> my house who was advertising locally I may wind up paying his SS tax.
> You certainly have the right to tell them what work you need done,
> regardless of whether it is raking the lawn or what color to paint which
> room.
>
> I agree to provide transcription service for X work regularly. My desire
> to do so. I'm not told what style to use, what program, etc. If I need
> to take a day off I do so. Of course I do notify my MTSO ahead of time.
> Conversely, I expect her to notify me if she doesn't want me to do the
> work. In fact, there have been times she decides she wants to do it.
> I've said well that's okay, but really no different than if I just
> decide some morning not to do Dr. X today. Works both ways. Truth be
> told, I set more limits on my MTSOs than they set on me. Guess that
> means I am their employer?
>
No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
business would just be closed that day.
Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-12, 11:15 am |
| Well, I suppose you could stretch it that far, but I wouldn't. When
you've committed to doing something, it would be bad business not to.
I'd think any reliable business of any kind would notify its clients if
it were being closed on a given day, at least by putting a sign up on
the door "We will be closed on X." Not to do so (if done regularly) is
going to cost them business. If the grocery store just felt like closing
haphazardly it would lose it clients to another store, especially if
they made the trip out and found it closed without notice. That's only
polite.
If I hire a lawn care business to mow my lawn every Thursday, I'd
certainly expect them to notify me if they were going to be closed on a
given Thursday to ask if I wanted them to come another day or to wait
until the next week.
Sandi wrote:
>
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Anne Vasquez 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| Sure, they could, but many businesses post a notice on the door or
something to let their clients know they're going to be closed for a
day, when they know in advance.
Anne
Sandi wrote:
>
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Phyllis 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| Our hospital oncology center routinely put up large notes all over the
department regarding what days we would be closed so the patients would
know. Courtesy more than anything I think (unless you are notifying the
MTSO you aren't working because the MTSO has made that a condition of
working for him/her).
Sandi wrote:
>
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| kathycarp 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
-----------------
An independent contractor has a contract to do "x" work. The contract should
spell out these things, shouldn't it?
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c0r6jF6gbkhgU1@individual.net...
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| I can't even imagine conceiving of NOT notifying someone. I even tell
the MTSO I only do absolutely p.r.n. work for when I'm going to be gone.
Of course, I do often work while on vacation - but that is my choice
seeing as I'm an IC an don't get vacation pay (plus two weeks or more of
nothing to do is unbearable to me). I'd certainly expect the MTSO to
tell me if she is going away for two weeks and won't be sending my
regular work. That way I can plan to take some time off or to line up
other work. I expect to be told if she's not going to be sending work on
any given day. She doesn't have to, but I don't want to be sitting
around wondering if it is going to come. Just manners
Phyllis wrote:
> Our hospital oncology center routinely put up large notes all over the
> department regarding what days we would be closed so the patients would
> know. Courtesy more than anything I think (unless you are notifying the
> MTSO you aren't working because the MTSO has made that a condition of
> working for him/her).
>
> Sandi wrote:
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| Kathy
I think some would argue that any regular work would constitute
employee,which is plain ridiculous. I don't change carpenters, plumbers,
farriers, etc., just because I'm afraid to have an ongoing relationship
with them. In this state, looks like maybe I should start to worry, though.
kathycarp wrote:
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
>
>
> -----------------
>
> An independent contractor has a contract to do "x" work. The contract should
> spell out these things, shouldn't it?
>
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| It's also a matter of good business practices to communicate with your
customers. If an IC is going to be unavailable on a particular day,
he's not likely to keep his clients or customers if he doesn't let them
know in advance so that they can plan accordingly. In fact, with
regular or long-term clients, there's a lot to be said for consulting
with them when planning vacations or time away. Everything else being
equal, most of us would rather choose a date that works for them as
well, rather than getting them ticked off at us for leaving them in the
lurch.
The issue of whether one is an IC or not wouldn't be likely to arise
there unless he were asking their permission to take that vacation.
Eliyahu
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:uOQ6e.3990$BJ3.2944@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I can't even imagine conceiving of NOT notifying someone. I even tell
> the MTSO I only do absolutely p.r.n. work for when I'm going to be
gone.
> Of course, I do often work while on vacation - but that is my choice
> seeing as I'm an IC an don't get vacation pay (plus two weeks or more
of
> nothing to do is unbearable to me). I'd certainly expect the MTSO to
> tell me if she is going away for two weeks and won't be sending my
> regular work. That way I can plan to take some time off or to line up
> other work. I expect to be told if she's not going to be sending work
on[vbcol=seagreen]
> any given day. She doesn't have to, but I don't want to be sitting
> around wondering if it is going to come. Just manners
>
>
> Phyllis wrote:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
would[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
plum[vbcol=seagreen]
paint[vbcol=seagreen]
tax.[vbcol=seagreen]
which[vbcol=seagreen]
desire[vbcol=seagreen]
need[vbcol=seagreen]
time.[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
it.[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
day off[vbcol=seagreen]
ordinary[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Barbara Carlson 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| I always give my clients advance warning if I am going to take time off.
What's more, if I am planning a special vacation or trip that is not "locked
in" by the event I am attending, I will try to find out when my two biggest
clients may be taking a vacation themselves, and coordinate. I don't do it
for them, I do it so I won't be so overwhelmed with work when I return. I
almost never take more than a couple of days off, just because it leaves me
so swamped on return.
Barb C.
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KmR6e.6604$_63.4109@fe03.lga...
> It's also a matter of good business practices to communicate with your
> customers. If an IC is going to be unavailable on a particular day,
> he's not likely to keep his clients or customers if he doesn't let them
> know in advance so that they can plan accordingly. In fact, with
> regular or long-term clients, there's a lot to be said for consulting
> with them when planning vacations or time away. Everything else being
> equal, most of us would rather choose a date that works for them as
> well, rather than getting them ticked off at us for leaving them in the
> lurch.
> The issue of whether one is an IC or not wouldn't be likely to arise
> there unless he were asking their permission to take that vacation.
>
> Eliyahu
>
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:uOQ6e.3990$BJ3.2944@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> gone.
> of
> on
> the
> would
> the
> of
> plum
> paint
> tax.
> which
> desire
> need
> time.
> the
> it.
> be
> that
> day off
> ordinary
>
>
| |
| Sandi 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| > It's also a matter of good business practices to communicate with your
> customers. If an IC is going to be unavailable on a particular day,
> he's not likely to keep his clients or customers if he doesn't let them
> know in advance so that they can plan accordingly. In fact, with
> regular or long-term clients, there's a lot to be said for consulting
> with them when planning vacations or time away. Everything else being
> equal, most of us would rather choose a date that works for them as
> well, rather than getting them ticked off at us for leaving them in the
> lurch.
> The issue of whether one is an IC or not wouldn't be likely to arise
> there unless he were asking their permission to take that vacation.
>
> Eliyahu
>
I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
Sandi
Sandi
| |
| Sandi 2005-04-12, 11:16 am |
| > Kathy
>
> I think some would argue that any regular work would constitute
> employee,which is plain ridiculous. I don't change carpenters, plumbers,
> farriers, etc., just because I'm afraid to have an ongoing relationship
> with them. In this state, looks like maybe I should start to worry,
though.
>
But do you have carpenters, plumbers, and farriers working for you on a
daily basis?
Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-13, 4:22 pm |
| There is no practical way in this line of work not to work regularly for
someone I don't think. I can't make money doing a new client daily and I
can't get to know the docs and be more tuned into their work (making me
more able to catch errors) otherwise. I don't want to work for someone
different every day. Shouldn't a business owner be allowed to work how
they wish?
Sandi wrote:
>
> I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
> your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
> could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
> much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
>
> Sandi
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-13, 4:22 pm |
| I don't, but if I owned a big stable I might have the farrier there very
regularly, even daily at times. Maybe some hire their own as employees,
but they all sure don't.
Sandi wrote:
>
> though.
>
> But do you have carpenters, plumbers, and farriers working for you on a
> daily basis?
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Phyllis 2005-04-13, 4:22 pm |
| My handyman was doing some work for us that took two weeks. When he
took a day off (better than contractors taking weeks off) it certainly
affected what we could and could not do the days he was off. He told us
when he wasn't going to be there, but I guarantee you, he is still an IC
(and still our handyman).
Sandi wrote:
>
> I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
> your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
> could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
> much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
>
> Sandi
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| <<Seems that it's only the sole props they are going after>>
Of course. They are the ones not paying unemployment insurance. The
IRS and the state of Georgia are cracking down on S corporations. They
are insisting that single shareholder S corps put that single
shareholder on payroll and pay the appropriate payroll taxes, including
the FUTA (federal unemployment) and SUTA (state unemployment). I guess
with unemployment being as high as it has been the past few years, it
has depleted any surplus of funds there may have been.
I know that insurance companies, particularly those who handle Work
Comp for construction related businesses, have cracked down on
requiring their customers to use subs who are covered by Work Comp on
their own. Or to cover them through the customer. I spoke at length
with a painting contractor the other day and they have switched to
using subs who are incorporated and can prove they have Work Comp on
all their employees. They got nailed by the insurance company with a
huge bill after an audit showed they were using uninsured subs.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| And it was a company using
many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
businesses.
And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
| |
|
| > Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of
> compliance,
> they will.
>
> Perhaps the people really are subcontractors?
>
Well, apparently they were found not to be, and if there's one thing I've
learned from working on federal cases, it's that if the government gets you
on its radar, life gets fairly difficult.
I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but will
only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar or
another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
Sandi
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
|
I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but
will
only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar
or
another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
I don't doubt that, I just don't believe that the answer to this
problem is to never have subs. If I had to turn my subs into
employees, I would probably just fold the business. Is that what the
government wants?
| |
|
| > I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but
> will
> only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar
> or
> another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
>
> I don't doubt that, I just don't believe that the answer to this
> problem is to never have subs. If I had to turn my subs into
> employees, I would probably just fold the business. Is that what the
> government wants?
>
What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at least in
Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be out by doing
this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how worker's comp could
be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know how that works. I'm not
trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always have
been. Where's the huge expense?
Sandi
| |
|
| > I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always
> have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> There is more accounting to be done with employees than with subs. I
> would have to hire a bookkeeper, and that would be the end of my
> profits. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. If you think 7.5% is
> nothing, then I guess you should have employees.
>
If I ever hire anyone, I will. I don't think it's nothing; I don't harbor
any delusions that it blows the entire profit margin, either. Sorry, I
didn't mean to make you defensive; I genuinely wanted to know.
Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| Gisele,
I didn't post this to be argumentative or for any reason but to point
out what a state can do should it get a hair across its XXX. The point
of my post was that if this state starts pulling this for what to most
people's way of thinking (and certainly to those targeted here) they
were operating clearly inside the law. If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control. IOW, if all
states start pulling this, every single MTSO I I've ever heard of using
subs could find themselves hit with huge assessments for back
unemployment (or other) payments. I've long felt that if an MTSO has
subs only outside her own state it may be safer, as her own state
wouldn't be the one hit with the unemployment claim (which apparently
this state feels is going to be filed).
It was meant to be a red flag. The state doesn't care whether you and
your subs have an agreement. They rule, then you have to prove them
wrong - at no small expense. If this isn't an issue in your state, I
guess it isn't a problem. However, those targeted here also felt very
sure they were utilizing ICs legally.
Gisele wrote:
> And it was a company using
> many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
> businesses.
>
> And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| Bingo! We don't care who it hurts or if it strangles small businesses.
For MTs I think it is often the ongoing relationship. Impossible to
avoid. What doctor, hospital, or MTSO wants to hire a new MT or service
every week or month?
Sandi wrote:
<snip>
> I won't do my "almost no transcriptionists are really ICs" spiel, but will
> only say that when government sees a way to wring another tax dollar or
> another fee out of a situation, it will find a way to get it.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| If I ever hire anyone, I will. I don't think it's nothing; I don't
harbor
any delusions that it blows the entire profit margin, either. Sorry, I
didn't mean to make you defensive
I'm certainly not defensive about any decisions regarding the way I run
my business. You asked a question and I answered it, that's all. When
you run your own business, of course you get to make those decisions.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| Yes, I did read the story, but who is a subcontractor and who is an
employee is not up to you. I understand that the state is trying to
collect what money they can, I just don't think it's going to have
enough impact to get a whole lot of workers reclassified.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| What about worker's comp, etc., and other employee benefits like
vacation, sick time, etc. SOme are not mandated, but most employees are
looking for something like that, including insurance coverage. I still
don't get the issue as far as I know you can't even get unemployment on
yourself as a sole proprietor (could be wrong), and I don't think you
can get Worker's Comp either as an SP.
Sandi wrote:
>
> What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at least in
> Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be out by doing
> this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how worker's comp could
> be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know how that works. I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| This is confusing hiring a business to do work for you personally vs.
hiring a person to work for your business. Big, big difference.
Again, if the MTSO tells you what style to use, what program to use,
how to do the work, provides you with all materials including generic
stuff like plain paper and toner, you probably are their employee. If
you provide all that, accept or refuse the work based on what you want
at that time, determine what program to use (within guidelines of
course), then you are on your own.
| |
| clj1219@aol.com 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| <<So, you're saying you could fire yourself and collect? LOL >>
pretty much, yeah.
| |
| Barbara Carlson 2005-04-13, 4:23 pm |
| This isn't so far fetched. After Hurricane Andrew I (and other MTs I knew)
did collect unemployment compensation for a while. I don't know whether it
was a special FEMA program or actually was through the Unemployment
Compensation division, but when we went to FEMA for assistance with other
things and they found we were self employed, they advised us to file if we
did not have work. I collected for several weeks, I think until electricity
was back on (which was actually 3 1/2 months where I live) and doctors were
able to dictate again.
Barb C.
<clj1219@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113398307.771892.108600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> <<So, you're saying you could fire yourself and collect? LOL >>
>
> pretty much, yeah.
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling
them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control.
I didn't think you were being argumentative by posting this. I don't
agree with your point relating the floor contractors to MTs. If my
state disagrees with me, of course I have to pay the penalty. Of
course you can avoid the headache if you simply do all the work
yourself. Not many MTSOs are going to turn back the clock to doing
only the work that they themselves can do. The world will still keep
turning. That was MY point, and my only point.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling
them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control.
I didn't think you were being argumentative by posting this. I don't
agree with your point relating the floor contractors to MTs. If my
state disagrees with me, of course I have to pay the penalty. Of
course you can avoid the headache if you simply do all the work
yourself. Not many MTSOs are going to turn back the clock to doing
only the work that they themselves can do. The world will still keep
turning. That was MY point, and my only point.
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Thing was by all rational thinking, this company was compliant. The subs
worked independently and had other clients, their own tools, showed up
on their own schedule, etc. The trigger was they TOLD THE SUBS WHERE THE
JOB WAS.
Sandi wrote:
>
> Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of compliance,
> they will.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Thing was by all rational thinking, this company was compliant. The subs
worked independently and had other clients, their own tools, showed up
on their own schedule, etc. The trigger was they TOLD THE SUBS WHERE THE
JOB WAS.
Sandi wrote:
>
> Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of compliance,
> they will.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Maureen Galvin 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Wouldn't you just make an adjustment to the line rate to compensate for the
7.5% you have to pay? There cant really be too much to complain about
either on their end as if you did not pay it, the IC has to pay it so either
way it is getting paid.
I just keep going back to the days when my DH worked out of the union hall
and had a different "employer" every day or so. They may have only worked 8
hours for one company out of the year, but we got W-2s at the end of the
year from all of them. They worked like ICs having to supply their own
tools, and agree to the terms of the job. - Start at 6:00 AM and work until
the job is done be it noon or 6:00 PM. They could take it or leave it.
Maybe I'm missing something, is there some other additional costs, besides
the additional time with bookkeeping?
Maureen
"Gisele" <Gdubson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113187908.954916.203070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always
> have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> There is more accounting to be done with employees than with subs. I
> would have to hire a bookkeeper, and that would be the end of my
> profits. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. If you think 7.5% is
> nothing, then I guess you should have employees.
>
| |
| Maureen Galvin 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Wouldn't you just make an adjustment to the line rate to compensate for the
7.5% you have to pay? There cant really be too much to complain about
either on their end as if you did not pay it, the IC has to pay it so either
way it is getting paid.
I just keep going back to the days when my DH worked out of the union hall
and had a different "employer" every day or so. They may have only worked 8
hours for one company out of the year, but we got W-2s at the end of the
year from all of them. They worked like ICs having to supply their own
tools, and agree to the terms of the job. - Start at 6:00 AM and work until
the job is done be it noon or 6:00 PM. They could take it or leave it.
Maybe I'm missing something, is there some other additional costs, besides
the additional time with bookkeeping?
Maureen
"Gisele" <Gdubson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113187908.954916.203070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not
> trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious about this and always
> have
> been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> There is more accounting to be done with employees than with subs. I
> would have to hire a bookkeeper, and that would be the end of my
> profits. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. If you think 7.5% is
> nothing, then I guess you should have employees.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Here's the link to the actual article should anyone be interested. It
includs a link to Maine's ABC laws of determining IC vs employee. I
think most reasonable people would think the business targeted easily
passes muster. That's what is frightening to me. It won't affect me as I
am not using subs, but it could put some folks right out of business if
the assessed back payments were high enough.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/b...8flooring.shtml
Gisele wrote:
> Fact is, if Colorado happens to see this story and starts to think OH A
> WAY TO GET MORE MONEY - you could be in the same position.
>
> If such a thing were to happen, I would have to deal with it.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Here's the link to the actual article should anyone be interested. It
includs a link to Maine's ABC laws of determining IC vs employee. I
think most reasonable people would think the business targeted easily
passes muster. That's what is frightening to me. It won't affect me as I
am not using subs, but it could put some folks right out of business if
the assessed back payments were high enough.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/b...8flooring.shtml
Gisele wrote:
> Fact is, if Colorado happens to see this story and starts to think OH A
> WAY TO GET MORE MONEY - you could be in the same position.
>
> If such a thing were to happen, I would have to deal with it.
>
| |
|
| > Then there is no such thing as a subcontractor ever, which is just plum
> ridiculous. Taking it to that length means if I hire a painter to paint
> my house who was advertising locally I may wind up paying his SS tax.
> You certainly have the right to tell them what work you need done,
> regardless of whether it is raking the lawn or what color to paint which
> room.
>
> I agree to provide transcription service for X work regularly. My desire
> to do so. I'm not told what style to use, what program, etc. If I need
> to take a day off I do so. Of course I do notify my MTSO ahead of time.
> Conversely, I expect her to notify me if she doesn't want me to do the
> work. In fact, there have been times she decides she wants to do it.
> I've said well that's okay, but really no different than if I just
> decide some morning not to do Dr. X today. Works both ways. Truth be
> told, I set more limits on my MTSOs than they set on me. Guess that
> means I am their employer?
>
No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
business would just be closed that day.
Sandi
| |
|
| > Then there is no such thing as a subcontractor ever, which is just plum
> ridiculous. Taking it to that length means if I hire a painter to paint
> my house who was advertising locally I may wind up paying his SS tax.
> You certainly have the right to tell them what work you need done,
> regardless of whether it is raking the lawn or what color to paint which
> room.
>
> I agree to provide transcription service for X work regularly. My desire
> to do so. I'm not told what style to use, what program, etc. If I need
> to take a day off I do so. Of course I do notify my MTSO ahead of time.
> Conversely, I expect her to notify me if she doesn't want me to do the
> work. In fact, there have been times she decides she wants to do it.
> I've said well that's okay, but really no different than if I just
> decide some morning not to do Dr. X today. Works both ways. Truth be
> told, I set more limits on my MTSOs than they set on me. Guess that
> means I am their employer?
>
No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
business would just be closed that day.
Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Gisele,
I didn't post this to be argumentative or for any reason but to point
out what a state can do should it get a hair across its XXX. The point
of my post was that if this state starts pulling this for what to most
people's way of thinking (and certainly to those targeted here) they
were operating clearly inside the law. If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control. IOW, if all
states start pulling this, every single MTSO I I've ever heard of using
subs could find themselves hit with huge assessments for back
unemployment (or other) payments. I've long felt that if an MTSO has
subs only outside her own state it may be safer, as her own state
wouldn't be the one hit with the unemployment claim (which apparently
this state feels is going to be filed).
It was meant to be a red flag. The state doesn't care whether you and
your subs have an agreement. They rule, then you have to prove them
wrong - at no small expense. If this isn't an issue in your state, I
guess it isn't a problem. However, those targeted here also felt very
sure they were utilizing ICs legally.
Gisele wrote:
> And it was a company using
> many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
> businesses.
>
> And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Gisele,
I didn't post this to be argumentative or for any reason but to point
out what a state can do should it get a hair across its XXX. The point
of my post was that if this state starts pulling this for what to most
people's way of thinking (and certainly to those targeted here) they
were operating clearly inside the law. If telling someone the location
of the job being subbed is can constitute "control," surely telling them
that transcribing Dr. Jones' tape from X date is control. IOW, if all
states start pulling this, every single MTSO I I've ever heard of using
subs could find themselves hit with huge assessments for back
unemployment (or other) payments. I've long felt that if an MTSO has
subs only outside her own state it may be safer, as her own state
wouldn't be the one hit with the unemployment claim (which apparently
this state feels is going to be filed).
It was meant to be a red flag. The state doesn't care whether you and
your subs have an agreement. They rule, then you have to prove them
wrong - at no small expense. If this isn't an issue in your state, I
guess it isn't a problem. However, those targeted here also felt very
sure they were utilizing ICs legally.
Gisele wrote:
> And it was a company using
> many subcontractors, some of which subbed work for a number of
> businesses.
>
> And yet businesses will continue to use subs.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Did you read the original story. They were really subcontractors by all
but the grasping at straws all of the sudden by the state. Much more so
real subcontractors than most MTs I hear of subbing!
Gisele wrote:
> Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of
> compliance,
> they will.
>
> Perhaps the people really are subcontractors?
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Did you read the original story. They were really subcontractors by all
but the grasping at straws all of the sudden by the state. Much more so
real subcontractors than most MTs I hear of subbing!
Gisele wrote:
> Well, sure, until the cost of getting caught exceeds the cost of
> compliance,
> they will.
>
> Perhaps the people really are subcontractors?
>
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Yes, I did read the story, but who is a subcontractor and who is an
employee is not up to you. I understand that the state is trying to
collect what money they can, I just don't think it's going to have
enough impact to get a whole lot of workers reclassified.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Yes, I did read the story, but who is a subcontractor and who is an
employee is not up to you. I understand that the state is trying to
collect what money they can, I just don't think it's going to have
enough impact to get a whole lot of workers reclassified.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| If I ever hire anyone, I will. I don't think it's nothing; I don't
harbor
any delusions that it blows the entire profit margin, either. Sorry, I
didn't mean to make you defensive
I'm certainly not defensive about any decisions regarding the way I run
my business. You asked a question and I answered it, that's all. When
you run your own business, of course you get to make those decisions.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| If I ever hire anyone, I will. I don't think it's nothing; I don't
harbor
any delusions that it blows the entire profit margin, either. Sorry, I
didn't mean to make you defensive
I'm certainly not defensive about any decisions regarding the way I run
my business. You asked a question and I answered it, that's all. When
you run your own business, of course you get to make those decisions.
| |
| Anne Vasquez 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Sure, they could, but many businesses post a notice on the door or
something to let their clients know they're going to be closed for a
day, when they know in advance.
Anne
Sandi wrote:
>
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Anne Vasquez 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Sure, they could, but many businesses post a notice on the door or
something to let their clients know they're going to be closed for a
day, when they know in advance.
Anne
Sandi wrote:
>
> No, but the fact that you notify them ahead of time if you take a day off
> doesn't completely smack of an independent situation either. An ordinary
> business would just be closed that day.
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
|
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3bu5lgF6kqlqmU1@individual.net:
> What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at
> least in Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be
> out by doing this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how
> worker's comp could be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know
> how that works. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely
> curious about this and always have been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> Sandi
>
>
>
Books are a PITA to keep straight with employees. If you can afford an
accountant, fine. I had employees when I was an MTSO. My sister worked
for an accounting firm. I chose to pay that firm to do our books, but I
did everything up to the actual figuring of taxes, FICA, etc. etc. etc.
It was just more trouble than it was worth to do it on my own.
Expenses are not that high, but it's a drag to have to write those checks
to the government - feds and state and local for some things.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donna
| |
|
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3bu5lgF6kqlqmU1@individual.net:
> What, in addition to the matching 7.5% in social security and (at
> least in Virginia) a tiny percentage to the unemployment, would you be
> out by doing this? No one has to provide benefits. I don't see how
> worker's comp could be paid on far-flung employees, so I don't know
> how that works. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely
> curious about this and always have been. Where's the huge expense?
>
> Sandi
>
>
>
Books are a PITA to keep straight with employees. If you can afford an
accountant, fine. I had employees when I was an MTSO. My sister worked
for an accounting firm. I chose to pay that firm to do our books, but I
did everything up to the actual figuring of taxes, FICA, etc. etc. etc.
It was just more trouble than it was worth to do it on my own.
Expenses are not that high, but it's a drag to have to write those checks
to the government - feds and state and local for some things.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donna
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| There is no practical way in this line of work not to work regularly for
someone I don't think. I can't make money doing a new client daily and I
can't get to know the docs and be more tuned into their work (making me
more able to catch errors) otherwise. I don't want to work for someone
different every day. Shouldn't a business owner be allowed to work how
they wish?
Sandi wrote:
>
> I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
> your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
> could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
> much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
>
> Sandi
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| There is no practical way in this line of work not to work regularly for
someone I don't think. I can't make money doing a new client daily and I
can't get to know the docs and be more tuned into their work (making me
more able to catch errors) otherwise. I don't want to work for someone
different every day. Shouldn't a business owner be allowed to work how
they wish?
Sandi wrote:
>
> I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
> your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
> could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
> much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
>
> Sandi
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| I don't, but if I owned a big stable I might have the farrier there very
regularly, even daily at times. Maybe some hire their own as employees,
but they all sure don't.
Sandi wrote:
>
> though.
>
> But do you have carpenters, plumbers, and farriers working for you on a
> daily basis?
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| I don't, but if I owned a big stable I might have the farrier there very
regularly, even daily at times. Maybe some hire their own as employees,
but they all sure don't.
Sandi wrote:
>
> though.
>
> But do you have carpenters, plumbers, and farriers working for you on a
> daily basis?
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
|
| > It's also a matter of good business practices to communicate with your
> customers. If an IC is going to be unavailable on a particular day,
> he's not likely to keep his clients or customers if he doesn't let them
> know in advance so that they can plan accordingly. In fact, with
> regular or long-term clients, there's a lot to be said for consulting
> with them when planning vacations or time away. Everything else being
> equal, most of us would rather choose a date that works for them as
> well, rather than getting them ticked off at us for leaving them in the
> lurch.
> The issue of whether one is an IC or not wouldn't be likely to arise
> there unless he were asking their permission to take that vacation.
>
> Eliyahu
>
I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
Sandi
Sandi
| |
|
| > It's also a matter of good business practices to communicate with your
> customers. If an IC is going to be unavailable on a particular day,
> he's not likely to keep his clients or customers if he doesn't let them
> know in advance so that they can plan accordingly. In fact, with
> regular or long-term clients, there's a lot to be said for consulting
> with them when planning vacations or time away. Everything else being
> equal, most of us would rather choose a date that works for them as
> well, rather than getting them ticked off at us for leaving them in the
> lurch.
> The issue of whether one is an IC or not wouldn't be likely to arise
> there unless he were asking their permission to take that vacation.
>
> Eliyahu
>
I guess I worded my comment wrong. What concerns me is that the nature of
your relationship is ongoing to the extent that any day you might take off
could potentially affect the MTSO. If you are working for someone pretty
much every day, or 5 days a week, I think that smacks of employment.
Sandi
Sandi
| |
|
| > Kathy
>
> I think some would argue that any regular work would constitute
> employee,which is plain ridiculous. I don't change carpenters, plumbers,
> farriers, etc., just because I'm afraid to have an ongoing relationship
> with them. In this state, looks like maybe I should start to worry,
though.
>
But do you have carpenters, plumbers, and farriers working for you on a
daily basis?
Sandi
| |
|
| > Kathy
>
> I think some would argue that any regular work would constitute
> employee,which is plain ridiculous. I don't change carpenters, plumbers,
> farriers, etc., just because I'm afraid to have an ongoing relationship
> with them. In this state, looks like maybe I should start to worry,
though.
>
But do you have carpenters, plumbers, and farriers working for you on a
daily basis?
Sandi
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
|
RaeMorrill wrote:
> Not everyone can afford to fight it.
No everyone will have to fight it.
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
|
RaeMorrill wrote:
> Not everyone can afford to fight it.
No everyone will have to fight it.
| |
|
| > > P.S. I did the bookkeeping and payroll for an office full (10-15) of
>
> Did you handle all of the tax payments, etc.? I always hated that part of
> handling payroll.
Yes, I did. It wasn't what I'd call fun, but if you're paying people as
contractors, I don't think it adds so much work as to destroy the profit
margin, either.
When I asked about what the big deal was, I assumed there was some huge
expense I was missing; I know now there's not.
Sandi
| |
|
| > > P.S. I did the bookkeeping and payroll for an office full (10-15) of
>
> Did you handle all of the tax payments, etc.? I always hated that part of
> handling payroll.
Yes, I did. It wasn't what I'd call fun, but if you're paying people as
contractors, I don't think it adds so much work as to destroy the profit
margin, either.
When I asked about what the big deal was, I assumed there was some huge
expense I was missing; I know now there's not.
Sandi
| |
|
| > I talked it over with my accountant last year, and we decided together
> that it was not the way to go for my business. Again, when you run your
> own business, you get to make those decisions.
>
Of course you do, until the state makes some of them for you. Just a
thought.
Sandi
| |
|
| > I talked it over with my accountant last year, and we decided together
> that it was not the way to go for my business. Again, when you run your
> own business, you get to make those decisions.
>
Of course you do, until the state makes some of them for you. Just a
thought.
Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-04-17, 6:16 pm |
| Then there is no such thing as a subcontractor ever, which is just plum
ridiculous. Taking it to that length means if I hire a painter to paint
my house who was advertising locally I may wind up paying his SS tax.
You certainly have the right to tell them what work you need done,
regardless of whether it is raking the lawn or what color to paint which
room.
I agree to provide transcription service for X work regularly. My desire
to do so. I'm not told what style to use, what program, etc. If I need
to take a day off I do so. Of course I do notify my MTSO ahead of time.
Conversely, I expect her to notify me if she doesn't want me to do the
work. In fact, there have been times she decides she wants to do it.
I've said well that's okay, but really no different than if I just
decide some morning not to do Dr. X today. Works both ways. Truth be
told, I set more limits on my MTSOs than they set on me. Guess that
means I am their employer?
| | |