Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!chinet!steinmetz!davidsen From: davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.edu Subject: Re: Sorry - Independent contractors and the law Message-ID: <1073@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Jan-87 10:21:59 EST Article-I.D.: steinmet.1073 Posted: Fri Jan 9 10:21:59 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Jan-87 06:00:22 EST References: <2352@mtuxo.UUCP> <488@unc.unc.UUCP> <795@maynard.BSW.COM> <492@unc.unc.UUCP> <1085@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> <235@tropix.UUCP> Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (william E Davidsen) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 21 Xref: watmath misc.legal:480 comp.edu:40 In article <235@tropix.UUCP> mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz) writes: >In article <1085@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> kaufman@Shasta.UUCP (Marc Kaufman) writes: >> >>I don't think we can get a *DEFINITIVE* ruling on this until the IRS makes >>up its operating rules. The purpose, evidently, is to get withholding tax >>from "consultants", many of whom are on very long term contracts via >>"body shops", who broker such workers. If you don't use a body shop at all, I think you are clearly independent. If you collect from a bodyshop and the customer pays the bodyshop directly, then I find it hard to argue that you are in fact an employee of the bodyshop. The question is the status of people who have the bodyshop find them a job. If you contract directly with a customer, and pay a fee to the bodyshop for finding you the job, I think that the bodyshop is acting as an employment agency, not an employer. Obviously this will be tested in court at some point. -- bill davidsen sixhub \ ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz -> crdos1!davidsen chinet / ARPA: davidsen%crdos1.uucp@crd.ge.com (or davidsen@crd.ge.com)