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)