I've heard from a few sources recently that there is a crackdown on design and/or architect subcontractors. Does anyone have details? I don't have any regular subs currently but often trade consultations with architect colleagues, and I've had long-term subs in the past (their preference to remain subs, btw). If my work load holds out I'll be in a good position to get help next year, but a remote worker is more likely than someone local.
x-jla
Sep 28, 20 7:24 pm
It’s hard to imagine that in the middle of a pandemic this is something they would be occupied with. I don’t see how they can crack down on anything, so long as the sub isn’t unlicensed and preforming services that require a license. Other than that, sub is just a fancy word for paying another company for a service.
jeiffert
Sep 29, 20 5:28 pm
It's not a practice or licensing issue. Some offices treat employees as subcontractors in order to avoid payroll administration and payment of benefits. It's a matter of definition of subcontractor vs. subcontractor.
x-jla
Sep 29, 20 6:51 pm
Yes, that’s a different story altogether. The subcontractor vs employee matrix is on the irs website I think. Even things like business cards, defined hours, degree of supervision, use of equipment, etc... muddy the relationship.
jeiffert
Sep 30, 20 12:24 pm
I just realized that I made a typo... last sentence meant
to say: subcontractor vs. EMPLOYEE.
whistler
Sep 29, 20 6:46 pm
If the majority ie 60% of your work is sole sourced to one client then you're an employee. ( not an actual rule but a good rule of thumb for folks claiming to be a "contractor" , at least accordingly to my accountant.
JonathanLivingston
Sep 29, 20 7:19 pm
A contractor choses when, where and how they will do their work. An employee is directed in such matters.
Classifying employees as contractors is a huge problem in this industry and I would not be surprised if they are cracking down on that during a time of employment constriction as people look to short cut the system and save a buck.
If you are or have been recently switched from an employee to a contract worker to "allow you more flexibility" But your employer is still providing you equipment, software and dictating the jobs you do or don't do, especially if you are not being paid substantially more, you should contact a lawyer. This is an especially common thing when times get tougher for firms and to be honest I think some people do feel like it is in the employee's best interest. The lesser but still likely illegal practice is shifting employees from salary to hourly when times get tough, also couched under the guise of "more flexibility" only work the hours you want so you can take care of family, children, home schooling or whatever. DONT FALL FOR IT.
mightyaa
Sep 30, 20 3:17 pm
I don’t know if it is a crackdown, but I’d think with COVID and filing for unemployment, a lot of companies like my last one were/are being nailed. Basically, they 1099’d me. I don’t have a issue with that except when they let me go I needed to file for unemployment. That isn’t allowed for self-employed, so I contested that I was actually a full-time employee with the unemployment office; had to be at their office, using their equipment, following their handbook, rules, and generally assigned work like everyone else instead of contract. Unemployment did an audit and agreed I was in fact a employee of that company… and nailed them (I'd imagine that also raised IRS issues as well); and I got my unemployment checks based on my salary.
I've heard from a few sources recently that there is a crackdown on design and/or architect subcontractors. Does anyone have details? I don't have any regular subs currently but often trade consultations with architect colleagues, and I've had long-term subs in the past (their preference to remain subs, btw). If my work load holds out I'll be in a good position to get help next year, but a remote worker is more likely than someone local.
It’s hard to imagine that in the middle of a pandemic this is something they would be occupied with. I don’t see how they can crack down on anything, so long as the sub isn’t unlicensed and preforming services that require a license. Other than that, sub is just a fancy word for paying another company for a service.
It's not a practice or licensing issue. Some offices treat employees as subcontractors in order to avoid payroll administration and payment of benefits. It's a matter of definition of subcontractor vs. subcontractor.
Yes, that’s a different story altogether. The subcontractor vs employee matrix is on the irs website I think. Even things like business cards, defined hours, degree of supervision, use of equipment, etc... muddy the relationship.
I just realized that I made a typo... last sentence meant to say: subcontractor vs. EMPLOYEE.
If the majority ie 60% of your work is sole sourced to one client then you're an employee. ( not an actual rule but a good rule of thumb for folks claiming to be a "contractor" , at least accordingly to my accountant.
A contractor choses when, where and how they will do their work. An employee is directed in such matters.
Classifying employees as contractors is a huge problem in this industry and I would not be surprised if they are cracking down on that during a time of employment constriction as people look to short cut the system and save a buck.
If you are or have been recently switched from an employee to a contract worker to "allow you more flexibility" But your employer is still providing you equipment, software and dictating the jobs you do or don't do, especially if you are not being paid substantially more, you should contact a lawyer. This is an especially common thing when times get tougher for firms and to be honest I think some people do feel like it is in the employee's best interest. The lesser but still likely illegal practice is shifting employees from salary to hourly when times get tough, also couched under the guise of "more flexibility" only work the hours you want so you can take care of family, children, home schooling or whatever. DONT FALL FOR IT.
I don’t know if it is a crackdown, but I’d think with COVID and filing for unemployment, a lot of companies like my last one were/are being nailed. Basically, they 1099’d me. I don’t have a issue with that except when they let me go I needed to file for unemployment. That isn’t allowed for self-employed, so I contested that I was actually a full-time employee with the unemployment office; had to be at their office, using their equipment, following their handbook, rules, and generally assigned work like everyone else instead of contract. Unemployment did an audit and agreed I was in fact a employee of that company… and nailed them (I'd imagine that also raised IRS issues as well); and I got my unemployment checks based on my salary.