Equiptment use fees

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
I'm not saying one way or the other is set in stone. In our case, one of the three is a specific tax attorney. Or, how do you argue with the actual IRS agent? Very tough call as much is open to interpretation. Certainly not trying to dispute someone elses experience.
Funny we have a different attorney than Bruno yet they say essentially the same thing.
I doubt they would come knocking on your door to look at this specifically. In the cases where they did with other fleet owners I have talked to it was a case of a contractor not paying taxes and then trying to claim they were actually a employee in order to not pay.
I guess between different lawyers saying the same thing (ours and Brunos) and a IRS guy, I feel comfortable with how we approach it.
I believe that is close to a second opinion as his lawyer is not the same as ours.
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Dave, I agree this is a gray area but people tend to forget who the IRS targets and how they look at things. The guy with 10 trucks and 20 contractors are not always the target, but if there is an issue with say how the deductions are taken and by whom, then it may be a flag for an audit. Having an LLC is another thing my lawyer and accountant both said not to ever do if I don't want to be flagged. Having an S corp doesn't invoke the same flag for some reason.

The one thing I can also say for sure is that Dave (bruno) has less to worry about with this subject than he does if he takes his 179 depreciation.

However the agent is not the final say so, there are other places to go, including court to get it adjudicated. They can only do so much and limited to their interpretation where their supervisor or others may not agree. I don't know if there is a "trucking bulletin" for agent guidelines like there is for Pizza shops and auto repair places but I would think there is somewhere that describes the nature of the work for the agent to understand what is going on.
 

Letzboogie

Not a Member
My .02 on the subject. A contractor is a contractor. Keep everything seperate and you are not likely to have a problem. The IRS looks for red flags, the biggest right now being allowing a contractor to use a company fuel card. Big no no. You are looking for trouble if you do this. Two fleet owners I know got nailed last year for it. The safest route is to make everyone an employee. Cost and headaches are a little higher but audits are far less likely and big "G" stays out of your life.
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
All I know for sure is, where the "tools of the trade" come from and who provides them is not the litmus test for employee versus independent contractor. If the tools such as straps and pallet jacks come with the truck, then as OVM said, they are part and parcel of the lease on the truck itself, and have no bearing on employment status. But regardless of who provides the tools of the trade, regardless of whether an "equipment use" fee is charged, if the truck owner mandates the use of those tools, then the owner has stepped over the "behavior control" and "ways and means" line into employer territory. The truck, straps, pallet jacks, they are all equipment, one in the same, and are all part of the same lease. If you want to charge usage fees for the straps, then you have to do the same for the truck. But you already do that with the revenue split.

Incidentally, I was once, for 10 years, an independent contractor where I provided no tools whatsoever and the company provided all of the tools I had to use. I could not use my own, as their tools were proprietary to the job. They even mandated the use of their tools. It made no difference to my status. It's all about the relationship and behavior control. I had to use their tools, but I could use them in any way I saw fit, despite us having training classes in how to use them, which was the difference.

Don't try and muddle the issue with things like Qualcomm, microwaves and APUs, as they are not tools of the trade, and providing those, fee-paid or not, is irrelevant to the employment status, as well. You don't need a Qualcomm, for example, to do the job of picking up and delivering freight. Same with an APU, it's not a tool of the trade. It's a recruiting and retention tool of the owner to incentivize (going with the synergy of it all, ya know) keeping people in the truck and having the truck earn money. Not having an APU at all is certainly cheaper than having one, but it's a very expensive non-expense if the truck sits empty because no one wants to drive a truck with no APU. An APU can pay for itself in a dozen loads if the loads pay well enough. The fact that it saves the fuel buyer money in fuel costs in a side benefit, and if the driver is the one buying fuel you can't really penalize them because the APU saves fuel. All I know is, I wouldn't get in a truck and drive for a fleet owner if I were paying for fuel and the truck didn't have an APU. If you want to charge usage fees for the APU, great, more power to ya if you can get someone to pay for it, but either way it won't change the independent contractor status of the driver.


Turtle

Your missing the whole point. You think it is all about another way for owners to make money off of drivers which it don't have a darn thing to do with. It's about being legal in the eyes of the IRS. You have two fleet owners telling you the same thing from two different Lawyers that practice Law. Now I didn't go to Law School and I don't think you did either. Because you wouldn't be driving if you had. Do you think you can post something postive in your posts on EO about things instead of bashing anything someone says. It just seem that you like to try to find fault with everything people post sometimes or you like dramma. Your A very nice guy and I have met you in person at Panther. You have a lot to offer in this business. I just think it can be in a more positive way.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Turtle

Your missing the whole point. You think it is all about another way for owners to make money off of drivers which it don't have a darn thing to do with. It's about being legal in the eyes of the IRS. You have two fleet owners telling you the same thing from two different Lawyers that practice Law. Now I didn't go to Law School and I don't think you did either. Because you wouldn't be driving if you had. Do you think you can post something postive in your posts on EO about things instead of bashing anything someone says. It just seem that you like to try to find fault with everything people post sometimes or you like dramma. Your A very nice guy and I have met you in person at Panther. You have a lot to offer in this business. I just think it can be in a more positive way.

That wasn't "bashing"...gee whiz....how come every time someone disagrees with someone the "IN" or "buzz" word now is "bashing"

Again Bruno YOU did put it out here, did you not?
You, better then anyone know you are going to get 1001 different opinions...

and NO I am not "bashing" you....just saying...
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
That wasn't "bashing"...gee whiz....how come every time someone disagrees with someone the "IN" or "buzz" word now is "bashing"

Again Bruno YOU did put it out here, did you not?
You, better then anyone know you are going to get 1001 different opinions...

and NO I am not "bashing" you....just saying...

I know your not OVM. :) I'm justing try to bring things up to other fleet owners and drivers to keep them legal. Not to charge the Driver fee's. You can charge them a fee of a $1.00 as long as you charge them something. I could careless, all I was trying to do was help other owners and drivers out with what I didn't know.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Now I didn't go to Law School and I don't think you did either. Because you wouldn't be driving if you had.

Oops! Don't forget, Bruno, Diane went to law school. Practiced law for 13 years and now drives a truck. She would be practicing law today if we had not gotten bit by the trucking bug. People come into expediting from all sorts of backgrounds for all sorts of reasons.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Turtle

Your missing the whole point.
Possibly, but I don't think so. It happens where I miss the whole point on occasion, but it's pretty rare.

You think it is all about another way for owners to make money off of drivers which it don't have a darn thing to do with.
If my attempt at communication in this thread is that confusing and pathetic, I apologize, but I assure you I don't think that's what it's all about at all.

To clarify things perhaps, I think the whole point is what you stated in your original post, which was, "because if you provide a contractor with a tool to do the job and don't charge them they are an employee," which is absolutely not true. It's dead wrong, and I don't care how many other owners are telling me otherwise, because I absolutely know what I'm talking about. Where the tools come from, whether or not a fee is paid to use them, is irrelevant to what makes an employee or an independent contractor. Depending on the nature of the relationship, it can play a part in determining status, but trucking, where a driver is already leasing the truck in the first place, doesn't lend itself to that kind of relationship to where the equipment and who provides it makes any difference.

Do you think you can post something postive in your posts on EO about things instead of bashing anything someone says.
Yes, I do. And I have, often. But when someone says something that is not true, or just plain stupid, I'll comment on it any way I see fit. If that hurts your feelings or deeply offends you, then it's a problem you need to deal with on your own instead of blaming me for your own fragile feelings.

It just seem that you like to try to find fault with everything people post sometimes or you like dramma. Your A very nice guy and I have met you in person at Panther. You have a lot to offer in this business. I just think it can be in a more positive way.
In a more positive way... how exactly? By agreeing with something I know for a stone cold fact to not be true? Sorry, not gonna happen.

I touched on the QC and the creature comforts solely because you brough them up as a means of justification and clarification. In fact you stated that now you understand why carriers charge for the QC, yet you clearly don't understand it at all. It absolutely isn't to keep the carrier legal, I guarantee you that. In fact, there are many non-asset based carriers who do not charge their independent contractors for the QC. They absorb the cost on their own, and the IRS could care less. And it doesn't make employees out of all their drivers, either.

A truck is a tool of the trade, and you lease it to a driver or drivers for a fee, namely a percentage of the revenue. There is no reason what..so..ever that you must separate out straps, load bars, pallet jacks or anything else in or on that truck as a separate item that must be charged separately in order to be legal. You can lease the truck and everything else as a single leased equipment package and still be legal. I know this because I've been on both sides of it and have been audited more than once on it, on both sides. Because of the nature of the relationship in trucking between fleet owner and contractor, if you charge for tools of the trade items piecemeal, you run the very real risk of de facto requiring (mandating) their use unless you plainly and explicitly allow the driver(s) to opt out of those charges and remove any and all of your fee-based tools of the trade equipment and leave it at your place of business or residence, or some other mutually agreed upon location under your control, and not be charged for it.

Like Phil said, get a second opinion from a qualified tax attorney who is intimate with the nature and specifics of what constitutes an independent contractor.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
I'm not a fleet owner but if I was and felt the need to hire an attorney to advise me on these matters and draft contracts that my drivers would sign, I would not want him or her to tell me what to do. I would want my attorney to explain my options and the pros and cons associated with each. I'd think thing over, decide on a course of action, get a second opinion on that course of action, think things over some more and drive on.

Few attorneys know what it is like to live and work on the road. They may be acting with good information and intent by advising a client to charge certain fees for the purpose of avoiding charges of employee misclassification (the hot issue of the moment and the trendy topic in law magazines and on the continuing education circuit), but that is not the whole story.

My attorney would advise. I would set my course after considering the advice in the context of everything else I know about my business and my attorney does not.

An attorney can't tell me how to run my business any more than I can tell him or her how to run a law practice.
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
Oops! Don't forget, Bruno, Diane went to law school. Practiced law for 13 years and now drives a truck. She would be practicing law today if we had not gotten bit by the trucking bug. People come into expediting from all sorts of backgrounds for all sorts of reasons.

Phil I know you and Diane practiced law, you even worked on helping getting one of my favorite people put in the Governor office in MN. Jessie Ventura really could have ran for President and won if you ask me. All I Was trying to say is that the IRS is trying to find more ways to get at contractors thanks to Obama. Did you know that his is trying to make it to where a small business has to send out a 1099 to every place that you spend more than $600.00 at each year. Do you know how many 1099 that would be for the small business owner like you and me? We have went to three different lawyers and they all have told us the same thing in regards to equiptment.

You as someone who practiced law knows what Blacks Law says a contrator is.

An independent contractor contracts with an employer to do a particular piece of work. This working relationship is a flexible one that provides benefits to both the worker and the employer. However, there are drawbacks to the relationship as well. The decision to hire or work as an independent contractor should be weighed carefully. Properly distinguishing between employees and independent contractors has important consequences, and the failure to maintain the distinction can be costly.

Taxes

The status of independent contractor carries with it many tax ramifications. For example, an employee shares the costs of Social Security and Medicare taxes with his or her employer; whereas an independent contractor is responsible for the entire amounts. Yet independent contractors generally qualify for more business deductions on their federal income taxes than do employees. Also, independent contractors must pay estimated taxes each quarter, whereas employees generally have taxes withheld from their paychecks by their employer.

One important disadvantage of working as an independent contractor is that standard employment benefits—such as health, life, dental, and disability insurance; funded retirement plans; paid vacation time; and paid maternity or Paternity leave—are not available. Independent contractors may fund their own benefits, but not on a tax-free basis—whereas many benefits provided by employers to employees are, by law, tax free.

Labor Relations

Congress and the states have enacted numerous laws geared toward protecting employees. The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 152(3)) protects employees and union members from unfair bargaining practices; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000 et seq.) protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (20 U.S.C.A. § 623) protects employees from age discrimination; the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 203) establishes Minimum Wage and overtime standards; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.A. § 1002) ensures the security of employee retirement funds; and the occupational safety and health act (29 U.S.C.A. § 652) protects employees from environmental work hazards. Most states also have unemployment and work-ers' compensation laws, which obligate employers to pay, directly or indirectly, for medical treatment or lost wages, or both, for employees who are injured while at work or who lose their job. None of these laws protect independent contractors. And because compliance often comes at great expense, employers can significantly reduce their liability and increase their profit margin by hiring independent contractors rather than employees.

Economics and Social Policy

Although not protected by law to the extent of an employee, an independent contractor has far greater control over elements such as work hours and work methods. Unlike most employees, an independent contractor may opt to work at night or on weekends, leaving weekdays free. An independent contractor may choose to wear blue jeans or a business suit, take one week of vacation or 30 weeks, or interrupt work to attend a child's school play or to go to the beach. Moreover, although the other contracting party retains control over the finished work product, an independent contractor has exclusive control over the actual work process. Decisions such as whether to work for one person or several, whether to work a little or a lot, whether to accept or reject an undesirable work project, and how much money to charge are made by the independent contractor.

The other party, in turn, enjoys mainly profit-related advantages by hiring an independent contractor instead of an employee. For one thing, an employer need not provide an independent contractor with vacation time, Pension, insurance, or other costly benefits. Management costs that ordinarily go toward training and overseeing large numbers of employees decrease when independent contractors do the work. Some say that because independent contractors benefit directly from their hard work, the quality of their work may be higher than it is for full-time employees who might be less motivated. And by hiring independent contractors, an employer enjoys the greater ease and flexibility to expand and contract the workforce as demand rises and falls.

Tort Liability

The common-law doctrine of Respondeat Superior holds an employer liable for the negligent acts of its employee. Generally, under Common Law, the hiring party is not responsible for the Negligence of an independent contractor. The Restatement (Second) of Torts identifies a few exceptions to this rule. The hiring party may be liable when, owing to its failure to exercise reasonable care to retain a competent and careful contractor, a third party is physically harmed. Also, when an independent contractor acts pursuant to orders or directions negligently given by the hiring party, the latter may be held liable. Notwithstanding the exceptions, the hiring party's risk of liability is greatly reduced by hiring independent contractors rather than employees.

Defining the Independent Contractor

No consistent, uniform definition distinguishes an employee from an independent contractor. Some statutes contain their own definitions. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when a statute contains the term employee but fails to define it adequately, there is a presumption that traditional agency-law criteria for identifying master-servant relationships apply (National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S. Ct. 1344, 111 L. Ed. 2d 581 [1992]).

One comprehensive test that takes into account agency-law criteria and numerous other factors courts have created to define independent contractor status was developed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Known collectively as the 20-factor test, the enumerated criteria generally fall within three categories: control (whether the employer or the worker has control over the work performed), organization (whether the worker is integrated into the business), and economic realities (whether the worker directly benefits from his or her labor). The 20 factors serve only as a guideline. Each factor's degree of importance varies depending on the occupation and the facts involved in a particular case.

Twenty-factor Test the IRS uses.

1. A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how he or she must work is usually an employee.

2. If an employer trains a worker—requires an experienced employee to work with the worker, educates the worker through correspondence, requires the worker to attend meetings, or uses other methods—this normally indicates that the worker is an employee.

3.If a worker's services are integrated into business operations, this tends to show that the worker is subject to direction and control and is thus an employee. This is the case particularly when a business's success or continuation depends to a large extent on the performance of certain services.

4.If a worker's services must be rendered personally, there is a presumption that the employer is interested in the methods by which the services are accomplished as well as in the result, making the worker an employee.

5. If an employer hires, supervises, and pays assistants for a worker, this indicates control over the worker on the job, making the worker an employee.

6.A continuing relationship between a worker and an employer, even at irregular intervals, tends to show an employer-employee relationship.

7. An employer who sets specific hours of work for a worker exhibits control over the worker, indicating that the worker is an employee.

8. If a worker is working substantially full-time for an employer, the worker is presumably not free to do work for other employers and is therefore an employee.

9. Work performed on an employer's premises suggests the employer's control over a worker, making the worker an employee. This is especially true when work could be done elsewhere. However, the mere fact that work is done off the employer's premises does not necessarily make the worker an independent contractor.

10. If a worker is required to perform services in an order or sequence set by an employer, the employer has control over the worker that demonstrates an employer-employee relationship.

11. A worker who is required to submit regular oral or written reports to an employer is likely an employee.

12. Payment by the hour, week, or month tends to indicate that a worker is an employee; payment made by the job or on a straight commission points to an independent contractor.

13. A worker is ordinarily an employee if an employer pays for the worker's business or travel expenses.

14. An employer who furnishes a worker with significant tools, materials, or other equipment tends to show that the worker is an employee.

15. A worker who significantly invests in facilities used to perform services and not typically maintained by employees (such as office space) is generally an independent contractor.

16. A worker who can realize a profit or loss resulting from his or her services is generally an independent contractor.

17. A worker who performs for more than one firm at a time is generally an independent contractor.

18. If a worker makes his or her services available to the general public on a regular and consistent basis, that worker is generally an independent contractor.

19.An employer's right to discharge a worker tends to show that the worker is an employee. An employee must obey an employer's instructions in order to stay employed; an independent contractor can be fired only if the work result fails to meet the agreed-upon specifications.

20.If a worker has the right to terminate his or her relationship with an employer at any time without incurring liability, such as breach of contract, that worker is likely an employee.

My point is Number 14 about tools. FedEX Custom Critical Got burned a few years back on something as small as a loading money to drivers Com Data Cards. That is why they changed to 45% from 50%. It's a long story, Owners just need to cover their butts just like drivers do.


Further readings can be found also at.


Fishman, Stephen. 2002. Working for Yourself: Law and Taxes for Independent Contractors, Freelancers, and Consultants. 4th ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Nolo.

——. 2000. Hiring Independent Contractors: The Employers' Legal Guide. 3d ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Nolo.

Nunnallee, Walter H. 1992. "Why Congress Needs to Fix the Employee/Independent Contractor Tax Rules." North Carolina Central Law Journal 20.

Pacynski, Rick A. 1993. "Legal Challenges in Using Independent Contractors." Michigan Bar Journal 72 (July).

Payton, Janet G. 2001. "Checklist for Determining Independent Contractor Status." Corporate Counsel's Quarterly 17 (October).

Ringquist, Neil A. 1997. Independent Contractor or Employee?: A Practioner's Guide. Chicago: CCH.

Sheppard, Lee A. 1999. "Resolving the Independent Contractor Dispute for the Future." Tax Notes 83 (May): 1282–86.

Treasury Department. Internal Revenue Service. 1987. Revenue Ruling 87-41. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wood, Robert W. 2000. Legal Guide to Independent Contractor Status. 3d ed. Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Press.

Cross-references
 
Last edited:

moose

Veteran Expediter
One can call the IRS with a question ten times, and get ten different answers to the same question. .

According to the flying J shower floor mat, the IRS admit that one of 5 callers to it's hot line gets the wrong answer.
 

moose

Veteran Expediter
The IRS looks for red flags, the biggest right now being allowing a contractor to use a company fuel card. Big no no. You are looking for trouble if you do this. Two fleet owners I know got nailed last year for it.

That WILL depends,
for example, if the drivers are being charged back for fees involved in using the card, interest, ext.
just like when a construction contractors are using builders accounts at Home Depot.
(i'd say Lowe's, but no builder in his right mind will use that store...they have all you need, but you can never find it...LoL...)
 

moose

Veteran Expediter
Oops! Don't forget, Bruno, Diane went to law school. Practiced law for 13 years and now drives a truck. She would be practicing law today if we had not gotten bit by the trucking bug. People come into expediting from all sorts of backgrounds for all sorts of reasons.

Yh'a, like Moose !
i actually hold an Engineering degree from the school of agriculture and spent a decade practicing before getting a CDL.
ever tried to find a way to get food via irrigation to a dern vegetable late in the season when the plant wont take any water ?
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Phil I know you and Diane practiced law, ....

Diane practiced law, I am not an attorney.

...All I Was trying to say is that the IRS is trying to find more ways to get at contractors thanks to Obama. Did you know that his is trying to make it to where a small business has to send out a 1099 to every place that you spend more than $600.00 at each year. Do you know how many 1099 that would be for the small business owner like you and me?

Just last Thursday Obama signed the repeal of that controversial 1099 provision. It no longer exists and was taken out before it went into effect.

We have went to three different lawyers and they all have told us the same thing in regards to equiptment.

It is your business and it of course falls to you to do what you think is right. But I remain skeptical. If I was a fleet owner and went to the same three lawyers you did (I notice the number has increased from one in your earlier posts), I would not be surprised to get different answers because it is very likely that my approach to the business would be different than yours, as would be the questions I would ask.

It does not matter to others that you got the answers you got. All that means is that your attorney(s) answered the questions you asked and addressed the concerns you raised, and gave advice they thought was in your best interests based on what they think they know about you and the law.

It does not relieve me of the need to get my own advice and it does not mean that the legal advice that is right for you is right for me or others.

You as someone who practiced law knows what Blacks Law says a contrator is.

I'm going to end my replies here and not comment about the legal text you posted. Again, I am not the attorney half of the Madsen team. Diane is. However, she and I agree that the last place to get information about the law is EO. Discussing Blacks' Law Dictionary quotes here serves no useful purpose for readers so I will bow out here.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
According to the flying J shower floor mat, the IRS admit that one of 5 callers to it's hot line gets the wrong answer.

Well I see the quotes are working their way into the thread. Bruno quotes Black's Law Dictionary. Moose quotes the Flying J shower floor mat (which I have also read).

I''m going with Moose. At least we know he takes showers.
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
Diane practiced law, I am not an attorney.



Just last Thursday Obama signed the repeal of that controversial 1099 provision. It no longer exists and was taken out before it went into effect.



It is your business and it of course falls to you to do what you think is right. But I remain skeptical. If I was a fleet owner and went to the same three lawyers you did (I notice the number has increased from one in your earlier posts), I would not be surprised to get different answers because it is very likely that my approach to the business would be different than yours, as would be the questions I would ask.

It does not matter to others that you got the answers you got. All that means is that your attorney(s) answered the questions you asked and addressed the concerns you raised, and gave advice they thought was in your best interests based on what they think they know about you and the law.

It does not relieve me of the need to get my own advice and it does not mean that the legal advice that is right for you is right for me or others.



I'm going to end my replies here and not comment about the legal text you posted. Again, I am not the attorney half of the Madsen team. Diane is. However, she and I agree that the last place to get information about the law is EO. Discussing Blacks' Law Dictionary quotes here serves no useful purpose for readers so I will bow out here.

Phil

I agree with what your saying, your taking it the wrong way. I didn't feel the need the post that I went to three lawyers but we did. We also called other fleet owners that have been in the business longer than we have been to see how they do things as far as equiptment. I won't post there names as it's not my business to do so. Your wife as a lawyer knows its a lot cheaper to try to prevent something before it can get you in trouble. Legal fees are not cheap and neither are court cost or fines. I would rather do something that would keep my business within the legal laws of the State of Ohio and the IRS from a Lawyer that handles this everyday in the State of Ohio. Laws in each state are different.

It really don't matter what I post on here to be honest. Everyone just needs to check with there own Lawyer and find out what their state regs are and what your lawyer says.
 

fastrod

Expert Expediter
Twenty-factor Test the IRS uses.

1. A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how he or she must work is usually an employee.

2. If an employer trains a worker—requires an experienced employee to work with the worker, educates the worker through correspondence, requires the worker to attend meetings, or uses other methods—this normally indicates that the worker is an employee.

3.If a worker's services are integrated into business operations, this tends to show that the worker is subject to direction and control and is thus an employee. This is the case particularly when a business's success or continuation depends to a large extent on the performance of certain services.

4.If a worker's services must be rendered personally, there is a presumption that the employer is interested in the methods by which the services are accomplished as well as in the result, making the worker an employee.

5. If an employer hires, supervises, and pays assistants for a worker, this indicates control over the worker on the job, making the worker an employee.

6.A continuing relationship between a worker and an employer, even at irregular intervals, tends to show an employer-employee relationship.

7. An employer who sets specific hours of work for a worker exhibits control over the worker, indicating that the worker is an employee.

8. If a worker is working substantially full-time for an employer, the worker is presumably not free to do work for other employers and is therefore an employee.

9. Work performed on an employer's premises suggests the employer's control over a worker, making the worker an employee. This is especially true when work could be done elsewhere. However, the mere fact that work is done off the employer's premises does not necessarily make the worker an independent contractor.

10. If a worker is required to perform services in an order or sequence set by an employer, the employer has control over the worker that demonstrates an employer-employee relationship.

11. A worker who is required to submit regular oral or written reports to an employer is likely an employee.

12. Payment by the hour, week, or month tends to indicate that a worker is an employee; payment made by the job or on a straight commission points to an independent contractor.

13. A worker is ordinarily an employee if an employer pays for the worker's business or travel expenses.

14. An employer who furnishes a worker with significant tools, materials, or other equipment tends to show that the worker is an employee.

15. A worker who significantly invests in facilities used to perform services and not typically maintained by employees (such as office space) is generally an independent contractor.

16. A worker who can realize a profit or loss resulting from his or her services is generally an independent contractor.

17. A worker who performs for more than one firm at a time is generally an independent contractor.

18. If a worker makes his or her services available to the general public on a regular and consistent basis, that worker is generally an independent contractor.

19.An employer's right to discharge a worker tends to show that the worker is an employee. An employee must obey an employer's instructions in order to stay employed; an independent contractor can be fired only if the work result fails to meet the agreed-upon specifications.

20.If a worker has the right to terminate his or her relationship with an employer at any time without incurring liability, such as breach of contract, that worker is likely an employee.
After reading this 20 factor test it looks like most on here are closer to employee designation than a independent contractor designation. It does not really matter that much because to the general public we are all viewed as delivery drivers who work for the company that has their name on the truck or van.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
each of those points has a qualifier behind it and that determines if it can be used.

For example a number of those would not be use in this profession because of the regulatory and service nature of the business we are in. If they didn't do that, then there would be such a mess of things with the DoL and the IRS that they wouldn't bother.
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
each of those points has a qualifier behind it and that determines if it can be used.

For example a number of those would not be use in this profession because of the regulatory and service nature of the business we are in. If they didn't do that, then there would be such a mess of things with the DoL and the IRS that they wouldn't bother.

Tell that to FedEx Ground then Greg. I'm sure they would love to have all those cases over turned by the IRS and the courts.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Tell that to FedEx Ground then Greg. I'm sure they would love to have all those cases over turned by the IRS and the courts.

Dave (bruno)
First thing that comes to mind is the FedEx cases are politically motivated, with the help of the union and other outside sources.

The second thing that comes to mind is my statement is proven by the very fact that the case(s) had to take in consideration the job, the person and the management to see if the point qualified to be applied in the suit and then how much of a degree there was if it was applied. The threshold for many of the points wasn't met but overlooked by the court as part of a motion by the people suing. IF you read the entire case or just the summary, you can see where this happened.

See the problem is you can't just apply all these points to a situation without knowing what the job entitles. The points are guidelines, not written in stone regulations and they are used by the IRS to capture 'lost tax revenue' but if applied wrongly, then it costs the IRS in different ways.

Seeing many are clueless to how the IRS works, or for that matter the Department of Labor who is actually in charge of classifying workers, they have research staff who will do field work to find out what people do. In the case of FedEx, they may have actually placed people at FedEx locations to do the research. They don't walk into an audit without knowing what can be applied and what can't.

BUT back to the issue, with five or ten trucks, it would be hard to believe that the IRS would put in so much effort to nail an owner on a frivolous issue like this for say what amounts to a few thousand dollars of payroll taxes and some fines.

I have yet heard of a situation outside of FedEx where the contracted driver/owner was deemed an employee of a carrier. I have heard of recovery of back payroll taxes due to a complaint filed by a contractor because the owner treated them like an employee.

OH AND as pointed out by an EA I know, the usage fee would also not be an issue because of the complexity of the depreciation with the equipment of the owner in many cases and the fact that the driver would be allowed to write it off, making it a wash anyway - in other words, you are moving numbers from one part of the spreadsheet to another and having a zero sum gain with taxes.
 
Top