Live data from Hacker News

How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

nytimes.com

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#51
post #45
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Anyone is free to create a sole proprietorship/partnership/corporation provided that there is not national security implications ("Pam and Tom's Atomic Weapons" - Disallowed "Pam and Tom's Fighter Craft Displays" - Allowed) or confusion in the marketplace or depletion of nation resource (fishing companies, dairy companies, logging, etc). Actually, small business law in Canada is extremely well thought ou…

It doesn't seem like there's as much incentive to misclassify employees as independent contractors in Canada. With government-provided health care and low/no payroll taxes, it isn't as lucrative to substitute contractors for full-time employees. I've worked with plenty of contractors and few of them were 'independent' by any reasonable definition, but no one seems to care much. Every contractor I've worked with seeme…

CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) and EI (employment insurance) take around %12 of the first $50'000 annually (CPP maxes out after that) so it is pretty significant if you hire mostly median waged people.

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#52
post #30

I have dealt with this law in depth, from every angle, from its inception in 1986 and have a few observations to make about it: 1. The technical issue concerns the tax risk to an employer whether someone functioning as an independent contractor might be reclassified as an employee via an IRS audit that finds that the person is in fact functioning as an employee and not as someone who runs his own business. This risk…

So I'm thinking this applies to me but I'm not sure.

I work part time at a company and they pay me directly as a contractor. I do all my work there and am subject to their workplace regulations.

Could the company and I potentially be at risk?

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#53

Wow.. just wow. what a load of crap, I cannot even imagine how many people are working "illegally". Most every programmer I know does some work on the side as a 1 person operation.

For what I understand, if you are doing work on the side, you should not be reclassified as employee. You do not work exclusively for the customer, nor with their hardware, neither full time, and probably not even on site.

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#54
post #52
post #30

I have dealt with this law in depth, from every angle, from its inception in 1986 and have a few observations to make about it: 1. The technical issue concerns the tax risk to an employer whether someone functioning as an independent contractor might be reclassified as an employee via an IRS audit that finds that the person is in fact functioning as an employee and not as someone who runs his own business. This risk…

So I'm thinking this applies to me but I'm not sure. I work part time at a company and they pay me directly as a contractor. I do all my work there and am subject to their workplace regulations. Could the company and I potentially be at risk?

Are you at risk? The law exists to protect you from exploitation - worst case they'd have to pay your self employment tax (7.5%), give you benefits, etc. right?

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#55
Isn't the root cause of all of this, the high cost of employing people(as opposed to just contracting them). I don't know if it is the situation elsewhere but here in Mexico; the benefits than a low income employee gets are worth the extra employments cost; but for higher income, you just get too many taxes and little benefits, so it is costly for companies without the employees getting much. So people hire contractors to avoid paying so much in benefits that are not worth much.

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#56
post #15

''This is Catch-22,'' he said. ''If you are not legitimate because you start out as a one-person corporation and you haven't been in business for a year, then how do you ever start your business? It is nonsensical.'' Save up at least a year's living expenses, get rid of everything you own, travel the world for a year. You'll save money over keeping it, see the world, write some code on your laptop at hotels. Get one…

I met people in Dharamsala/Mcleod Ganj India that were doing this - supporting themselves with light contract work over terrible internet connections. They were pretty happy. I even heard of one contractor couple way up in Manali/Leh with satellite internets making a good living by US standards this way.

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#57
post #51
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem like there's as much incentive to misclassify employees as independent contractors in Canada. With government-provided health care and low/no payroll taxes, it isn't as lucrative to substitute contractors for full-time employees. I've worked with plenty of contractors and few of them were 'independent' by any reasonable definition, but no one seems to care much. Every contractor I've worked with seeme…

CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) and EI (employment insurance) take around %12 of the first $50'000 annually (CPP maxes out after that) so it is pretty significant if you hire mostly median waged people.

IIRC self-employed people need to pay the employer part of those, so it's just a matter of changing who pays, not the total taxes.

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#58
post #52
post #30

I have dealt with this law in depth, from every angle, from its inception in 1986 and have a few observations to make about it: 1. The technical issue concerns the tax risk to an employer whether someone functioning as an independent contractor might be reclassified as an employee via an IRS audit that finds that the person is in fact functioning as an employee and not as someone who runs his own business. This risk…

So I'm thinking this applies to me but I'm not sure. I work part time at a company and they pay me directly as a contractor. I do all my work there and am subject to their workplace regulations. Could the company and I potentially be at risk?

It is the employer who is primarily at risk (I generally agree with rjurney's related comment).

The traditional assessment (i.e., one done without regard to any safe harbor protections and also without going mindlessly through the "20 factors," which is usually not helpful) would run roughly as follows: (1) do you have a written agreement specifying that you are an independent contractor and setting forth terms that characterize an independent contractor relationship? (if you don't have such an agreement, the company basically loses out the gate on this issue in almost all cases); (2) are your services of the highly skilled type that people normally would pay an outside contractor to perform? (if so, this tips toward contractor); (3) are you truly in business for yourself and do the various indicia (yes, that is a lawyer word) of your work situation corroborate this (if sole proprietor, do you have a business license, a dba, a policy of liability insurance, etc. relating to your contract work or are you set up as an entity - these factors all tip toward contractor); (4) can you document that you perform services for multiple clients, that you hold yourself as doing so, and that your agreement permits work for others (if you have a website advertising your company, or if you in fact have done contracting work for multiple clients over a sustained period, etc., this tips toward contractor); (5) is what you do for your company a regular and recurring part of its business, for which it would normally hire an employee as opposed to more of a spot project such as helping develop a company's website? ("regular and recurring" tips strongly toward employee; "spot" tips toward contractor); (6) do you have to report to a specific place of work on a specific schedule? (tips strongly toward employee); (7) do you work under the direct supervision of any person at the company, whether a boss or a supervisor? (tips strongly toward employee); (8) are you required to complete a clearly defined "project" or must you show up at work to do whatever you are ordered? (the latter tips strongly toward employee).

All of the above is another way of saying, "is this person really in his own business?" when performing duties for this company. If I am hired as the company's lawyer, my goal is to deliver a result on my own time and in my own way. If what you are doing is analogous to this, then you might truly be a contractor. If not, then you likely are not.

Of course, check with a knowledgeable lawyer about your own specific case and concerning any risk or options should you be mis-classified. Can't give advice here about any specifics.

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#59
post #30

I have dealt with this law in depth, from every angle, from its inception in 1986 and have a few observations to make about it: 1. The technical issue concerns the tax risk to an employer whether someone functioning as an independent contractor might be reclassified as an employee via an IRS audit that finds that the person is in fact functioning as an employee and not as someone who runs his own business. This risk…

[deleted]

Re: How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers (1998)

#60
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Anyone is free to create a sole proprietorship/partnership/corporation provided that there is not national security implications ("Pam and Tom's Atomic Weapons" - Disallowed "Pam and Tom's Fighter Craft Displays" - Allowed) or confusion in the marketplace or depletion of nation resource (fishing companies, dairy companies, logging, etc). Actually, small business law in Canada is extremely well thought ou…

Can you as us citizen register company in Canada and provide your services in US? Is there anything against it? Import tax on services?

You can do that, but it won't help. My understanding (as a non-US tax expert) is that if you're providing a service in the US you have to pay taxes in the US -- at least, last time I did consulting for a US company I had to fill out paperwork confirming that I was Canadian and doing all of the work from Canada in order to avoid all sorts of US tax paperwork.
Post reply on HN