|
Posted by Stuart A. Bronstein on January 23, 2007, 2:23 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> I haven't heard of that happenning. But I have heard of
>> people being determined to be one status for income tax
>> purposes but the other status for unemployment insurance.
> As it happens, I met a fellow who claimed his "employees"
> were indeed ICs for federal tax purposes, but because he was
> paying UI insurance, they didn't need to have the business
> licenses (which would otherwise have been required under
> municipal ordinance). Naturally, I thought he was trying to
> have it both ways! Do you have any further details??
Sorry, I don't have any other information off the top of my
head.
> Anyway, in the general case (different classification
> criteria for states vs. federal), this must simply be a case
> of state hubris. One could conclude from your answer that
> any state criteria ought to be ignored, and the
> classification simply be made under federal guidelines.
The criteria might be different because the purposes and
effects (and standards) of the laws might be different. So
state laws making someone an employee for unemployment or
workers compensation purposes (e.g. real estate salespeople)
would be unrelated (though similar) to the federal
requirements for income tax purposes.
Stu
<< ======================================================= >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ======================================================= >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap