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