Independent Contractor or misclassification?

TeamCaffee

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
I have been reading and seeing more that the IRS is going to come down hard on misclassification of Independent Contractors and this is a serious list:

This list came from the California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA)

Link to the Original Article " Obama Care and the Independent Contractor"


What Makes An Independent Contractor?
In California, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) applies the economic realities test, the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the work and issues involved are:
1.Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;
2.Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;
3.Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
4.The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;
5.Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
6.The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
7.The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
8.The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
9.The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and
11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.


While reading Heavy Duty Trucking today I came across an article about Lease Purchase that has a paragraph talking about in the next decade of the IRS going after 6.9 billion of misclassification of independent contractors in audits.

The radio is full of talk about these audits and I am curious to how hard this will hit the Expedite industry or what are you as a fleet owner doing to protect yourself in case of an audit?
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
We have been audited in the past. No problems, but we also use a attorney. California is in a world of their own out there and many get into issues with the state rather than the IRS itself.
I am comfortable where we are at but things could change. If in the event they do, I would set up teams as their own company and then lease them the equipment. In that scenerio there is no independent contractors that I would have a relationship with. That would cost roughly 400 a team to set them up and reconfigure a contract that is more business to business.
On a side note, I could see some issues with a lease purchase that is directly done with a carrier.
 
Last edited:

Lawrence

Founder
Staff member
Clearly, these taxing institutions want more control and power. I think the future of independent contractor status in the industry as we know it - will be severely limited in the future because they want control of your cash flow.
 

Murraycroexp

Veteran Expediter
The Feds have had the IC status and carrier "abuses" in their sights for several years now. I recall a big scare after Obama came into office about employer control and ICs. It certainly changed several things we did at the time. We lived in the gray area a lot.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Companies are there own worst enemy as well.... The contractual demands that are borderline employee status... The IRS could be simply responding to rhe increased number of complaints against employers
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Wayback when in Canada.... employers were quickly shedding employees and calling them contractors wrongly. Tax man stepped in... Many were found guilty....
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Good for Canada, now back to a real country. :D

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Good for Canada, now back to a real country. :D

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

Point is sir.... With Obamacare companies are going to try where possible to dump employees into a contractor role to minimize healthcare taxes....
 

geo

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Retired Expediter
US Navy
with ceva come and go as i please
just let em know a head of time when your taking off
all they say is have fun and be safe
 

zorry

Veteran Expediter
If I, as an IC,went and leased a truck from wherever, why wouldn't I then negotiate and/or sign a lease with the carrier of MY Choice ?

Just food for thought .
 

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
I have said this very same thing in a earlier thread. I truly believe that fleet owners who are on a percentage split are gonna get nailed and nailed hard. Number 3 and number 7 in the op are the two most heavily weighted factors in determining employee or ic status. If you don't own the tools to do the job you don't have an equal opportunity for profit and loss and therefore will be considered an employee and your fleet owner will get nailed for back taxes, workers comp etc...

For those fleet owners who plan to lease their equipment to the drivers, you may not be able to pass muster with that arrangement either unless it is a true lease of the equipment only with no restrictions on which company the unit may be placed with it, otherwise it could be considered indentured servitude. I am not an attorney but it's food for thought.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
If an IRS crackdown comes down hard on expediter fleet owners and their drivers, that would not be the end of the story. Businesses quickly adapt to the tax laws of the day.

The ownership of tools is part of the definition of an independent contractor but not all of it. There are many independent contractors that get hired to work on projects in offices where all the tools are provided. But they meet the definition because they have the freedom to work for other businesses too.

If misclassification enforcement begins to affect fleet owners and their drivers, carriers that rely on fleet owners will likely change their business model to help fleet owners and their drivers continue to qualify as independent contractors.

One change that is not beyond reason to imagine is non-branded trucks, owned by fleet owners, driven by percentage-paid drivers, that are simultaneously leased to multiple carriers.

That would give the drivers more freedom to work not only whenever and however they wish, but also for whatever carrier they wish; all while maintaining a relationship with the fleet owner and being paid on a percentage of revenue basis.

This would require a degree of cooperation among carriers. It is interesting to note that FedEx Custom Critical has already taken a major step in the multi-carrier cooperation direction by embracing Sylectus Software and deepening its relationship with the Sylectus network.

Indeed, in the Sylectus network, the mechanism for multi-carrier cooperation is well developed and already widely used. If IRS enforcement becomes a big problem for fleet owners, it would not take much for big carriers like FedEx Custom Critical and Panther to drop their exclusive lease requirements and thereby help fleet owners and their drivers to maintain independent contractor status. It might develop that the virtual fleet that Sylectus now is will become the virtual carrier of the expediting industry itself.

Such a change would may require changes in the way fleet owners structure their businesses and/or changes at Sylectus to deal in a new way with carriers and fleet owners. But these are not particularly difficult to do once the policies are decided and the exact course is determined.

I am not an attorney but it's food for thought.
 
Last edited:

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
I have said this very same thing in a earlier thread. I truly believe that fleet owners who are on a percentage split are gonna get nailed and nailed hard. Number 3 and number 7 in the op are the two most heavily weighted factors in determining employee or ic status. If you don't own the tools to do the job you don't have an equal opportunity for profit and loss and therefore will be considered an employee and your fleet owner will get nailed for back taxes, workers comp etc...

For those fleet owners who plan to lease their equipment to the drivers, you may not be able to pass muster with that arrangement either unless it is a true lease of the equipment only with no restrictions on which company the unit may be placed with it, otherwise it could be considered indentured servitude. I am not an attorney but it's food for thought.

It only says whether a profit or loss can be realized. If a truck breaks down on a load, the independent contractor would lose revenue, and possibly have additional expenses whether hotel, fuel, or anything else. It doesn't say it has to be "equal" in any regard.
Inside or outside of trucking it would be too hard to quantify what "equal" means.
With regard to carrier leases, several including the Fed and Panther can haul for other carriers or shippers. In those cases, the driver is deciding the rate, whether they want to run it, and to where. The carriers take a percentage but it is not a carrier directive to participate in those types of opportunities.
 
Last edited:

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
More common phrase is " the expectation of profit".... The government has more to lose then gain by coming after the small fish .... Pure Obama paranoia
 

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
It only says whether a profit or loss can be realized. If a truck breaks down on a load, the independent contractor would lose revenue, and possibly have additional expenses whether hotel, fuel, or anything else. It doesn't say it has to be "equal" in any regard.
Inside or outside of trucking it would be too hard to quantify what "equal" means.
With regard to carrier leases, several including the Fed and Panther can haul for other carriers or shippers. In those cases, the driver is deciding the rate, whether they want to run it, and to where. The carriers take a percentage but it is not a carrier directive to participate in those types of opportunities.

Agreed, however if you are a driver on a split, generally your only expense will be fuel ( if that Is the deal) and outside of personal miles or maybe fuel for the apu, the only time you will incur that expense is when you are engaged on a load. You will not incur any expenses waiting for a load outside of what you would have to incur personally to live anyway. And in most cases since the driver does not pay for repairs and insurance, then the only time expenses are incurred is when they are engaged on a load. So what I'm getting at is that there is no reasonable chance for the driver to incur a loss as they do not have any fixed expenses the are required to pay even if the vehicle is not generating any revenue.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Agreed, however if you are a driver on a split, generally your only expense will be fuel ( if that Is the deal) and outside of personal miles or maybe fuel for the apu, the only time you will incur that expense is when you are engaged on a load. You will not incur any expenses waiting for a load outside of what you would have to incur personally to live anyway. And in most cases since the driver does not pay for repairs and insurance, then the only time expenses are incurred is when they are engaged on a load. So what I'm getting at is that there is no reasonable chance for the driver to incur a loss as they do not have any fixed expenses the are required to pay even if the vehicle is not generating any revenue.

I understand your line of thinking but the IRS or even the insurance industry doesn't view it that way. Case in point would be if a independant contractor was involved in an accident and wasn't at fault, a subrogration process would award "lost wages" for the time the vehicle is down. Doesn't matter whether he owned the vehicle or not.

I would agree with OVM though on the bigger fish. When Fedex Ground got into all that stuff in California, it was Fedex they after rather than the leased contractors.
"Follow the money".
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
This is from Blacks Law Dictionary

What is INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR?
This term describes the person who is asked do perform an action or job who maintains the control over the job.

We have drivers that lease trucks and they pay Mayfield Express a percentage of the income from the trucks. As for providing the contractor equipment to do the job. Our driver's rent equipment from us to do the job. They have control over what loads they take or turn down.

Like Davekc we used a Lawyer for our contract.
 
Last edited:

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Sorry Dave but you lost me on that one. I don't employ any drivers but I don't believe the insurance industry has any view about the status of drivers beyond the point of wether their driving experience and DMV report allow them to be insurable or not.

As a fleet owner you are paying insurance for that lost wage coverage should you choose to do so, it has nothing to do with the IRS. No different than paying for mortgage insurance on your house, disability insurance or any other type. The insurance industry cares not what the status of the driver is. And in event of a loss they are paying the vehicle owner or registered insured not the driver, either a fixed daily amount or percentage of average truck revenue. It's up to the owner wether or not they share that loss of use with their drivers.
I'm not sure how the insurance industry's view has any relevance here in determining ic/employee status?
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
That is all true. But from a legal standpoint, they still consider it a loss. Additionally, when looking at workers comp on a independant contractor, that varies significantly depending on the state where the driver is from. For example, a IC from NJ can opt out of workers comp but must also pay a fee of 750 to do so. As odd as it sounds, as long as they get their 750, they could care less about anything else.
Biggest thing is go to IRS.gov and they provide a list to determine elgibility. A lot of gray area, but unless they change some things, not much will change at the federal level. As mentioned, we have been through several audits and no problems each time including a contract review.
I should mention that for owners paying fuel, we asked about it and they said they didn't recommend it as it could possibly indicate control. So....thats why we don't pay fuel.
 
Last edited:
Top