09.12.2012 Views

Misclassification of Workers - Proskauer Rose LLP

Misclassification of Workers - Proskauer Rose LLP

Misclassification of Workers - Proskauer Rose LLP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

© 2010 <strong>Proskauer</strong> <strong>Rose</strong> <strong>LLP</strong><br />

might be considered employees) and be relieved <strong>of</strong> employment<br />

tax and income tax withholding liability, including any interest or<br />

penalties. To benefit from Section 530, the business must have:<br />

i. Properly filed all federal tax returns and Forms 1099;<br />

ii. Treated, for employment tax purposes, all <strong>of</strong> its workers<br />

holding substantially similar positions in the same manner;<br />

and<br />

iii. Had some reasonable basis for not treating the workers as<br />

employees.<br />

6. Taxpayer Responsibility Accountability, and Consistency Act <strong>of</strong> 2009<br />

a. In December 2009, Senator John Kerry, D-Mass, introduced the<br />

Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability and Consistency Act <strong>of</strong><br />

2009 (“TRACA”) to close the safe harbor created by Section 530. 8<br />

If enacted, the TRACA would, among other things, change the safe<br />

harbor provision to minimize abuses and require companies that pay<br />

more than $600 a year to providers <strong>of</strong> property and services to file<br />

an information report with each provider and with the IRS.<br />

7. Unemployment Compensation<br />

a. Generally, a business could be found liable for unemployment<br />

insurance withholding in the state in which the business resides if a<br />

temporary employee files for unemployment insurance benefits<br />

that are provided by state funds to “employees” and a state agency<br />

determines that the applicant is an employee and not an<br />

independent contractor.<br />

b. However, an out-<strong>of</strong>-state telecommuting employee is not entitled<br />

to the unemployment insurance benefits in the state in which the<br />

employer’s business resides. In re Claim <strong>of</strong> Allen, 100 N.Y.2d 282<br />

(N.Y. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that employee working from her<br />

home in Florida for the company located in New York was not<br />

entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits from New<br />

York because the employee was physically present in Florida<br />

rather than New York).<br />

c. In Florida, Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1966), sets<br />

forth the factors considered to determine whether a person is an<br />

employee or independent contractor:<br />

i. the extent <strong>of</strong> control which, by the agreement, the master<br />

may exercise over the details <strong>of</strong> the work;<br />

8 See Taxpayer Responsibility Accountability, and Consistency Act <strong>of</strong> 2009, S. 2882, 111th Cong. 2009, available at<br />

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2882 (last visited on March 21, 2010).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!