To expound on your comments... - Daisy Mae Posted: Sep 26th, 2016 - 5:36 pm In Reply to: IC Questions - alb8ros
I filed an S-88 with the IRS to have them determine if I was being treated as an employee or IC. I have worked as an IC for years. I was told I had to work a schedule which was not even discussed in pre-contract status or was included in the original contract. Well, out of the blue, here comes a schedule for all the ICs for ONE YEAR for the weekend and a new contract specifying a commitment to a schedule. Then, we were micromanaged to death, told how to do our work and when to do our work. The IRS determined that I was a statutory employee. I am quite sure in finding me a statutory employee, all the other MTs at the company were considered statutory as well. Why not? We were all treated the same. I had tons of documentation I provided to the IRS to help them in their ruling. Too many companies today think and believe they can treat an IC as an employee with no repercussions, but that is not so. The IRS states it is the employer's responsibility to know the classification of its workers and to make the correct determination as to their status. MTSOs don't bother to find out or use sound business judgment, even after the MT tells them repeatedly that they cannot exercise the control they are using; therefore, they pay the price when an IC files the S-88. Flexibility for the IC is primary, the flexibility to contract with other companies and not be held to a schedule that keeps them from working other contracts in the course of a given day.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
- IC questions. - thinking about becomine one. sm (Views: 820, 2016-09-26, 3:25 pm)
- IC Questions - alb8ros (Views: 688, 2016-09-26, 5:07 pm)
- To expound on your comments... - Daisy Mae
- Daisy Mae - interesting (Views: 653, 2016-09-27, 2:25 pm)
- IC - Toni (Views: 498, 2016-10-03, 12:55 pm)
|
