It's so nebulous
Posted By: donex3 on 2009-08-02
In Reply to: You make some very good points. - A. Sertive
I get what you're saying with all of it, but I think it comes back to the fact that it's rare, if ever, that we're hired for temporary work or on a per-job basis.
And, sorry this isn't more thought out - I'm SO tired, but wanted to respond while I was thinking about it - there is one more qualifier that I think would probably be the kicker for just about any MT company. As if the first few that have been pointed out wouldn't potentially be enough to cause some enormous problems.
I'm not seeing this qualifier on the IRS site, but I read several articles last week regarding this - too late and tired to go find them now. Will try to tomorrow.
In any case, apparently several cases have been proven and won by ICs (who should have been employees) based on the fact that the company they were working for actually hired employees to do similar jobs (at that moment, and in the past).
So, if a company has MTs as employees, they technically cannot have them as ICs. In addition, I would imagine that QA does close enough to a similar job as MTs that it would qualify, as well.
I'll try to document this tomorrow. Sorry again for the tired post.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
|
