Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!tropix!mjl
From: mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.edu
Subject: Re: Sorry - Independent contractors and the law
Message-ID: <235@tropix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 14:40:49 EST
Article-I.D.: tropix.235
Posted: Mon Jan  5 14:40:49 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Jan-87 22:15:25 EST
References: <2352@mtuxo.UUCP> <488@unc.unc.UUCP> <795@maynard.BSW.COM> <492@unc.unc.UUCP> <1085@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz)
Organization: GCA/Tropel Div. Rochester, NY 14450
Lines: 19
Xref: mnetor misc.legal:524 comp.edu:31

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.

I discussed this with my accountant (on New Year's Eve, when I also paid
him for his services for the preceding year :-)).  His firm holds to the
"body shop" interpretation, and says you're still an independent consultant
if a) you work for yourself, b) you determine you own rate, and c) you
set your own hours.  Most consultants academia meet all of these
criteria.

Of course, this isn't definitive (it never is until the IRS gets to play
for awhile), but my accountant interprets tax laws very conservatively,
so I'm betting he's got it right.

Mike Lutz