Independent contractor classification: the challenge of doing it right.

Borstorff, Patricia ; Newton, Stan

ABSTRACT

At a recent White House Conference on Small Business, attendees rated independent contractor (IC) classification disputes as the most pressing small business issue. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims it loses billions of dollars each year in employment and income taxes due to improper classification. Over 8 million independent contractors are in use in the US and this number is expected to double within the next ten years. The current rules are complicated, confusing, and subjective; clarification and simplification of the existing worker classification guidelines is necessary. A survey of small businesses was conducted in a southeastern state concerning determination and use of independent contractor status. A second study was conducted with educational institutions with a slightly modified survey. We found that a third of the universities and colleges had policies in place for determining status of workers whereas smaller employers did not have a procedure to follow and appeared to be unconcerned with this lack of procedure. Both groups reported confusion in classifying workers properly.

INTRODUCTION

The General Accounting Office estimates that the government loses $20 billion annually to employees misclassified as independent contractors (IC). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that only 15% of ICs pay the proper amount of taxes but 90% of W-2 employees pay their proper share. Many firms are unaware that they may be violating the law. The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue testified before Congress, stating, "One of the most difficult and controversial issues in the employment tax area is the definition of 'employee'.... The rules are confusing to employers." But at an IRS audit, the company has the responsibility to support, by a preponderance of evidence, the independent status of their ICs (Independent contractor/returning retiree issue, 2005).

The reclassification by the IRS of workers from independent contractors to employees can be devastating to small business owners. Such reclassification often subjects a business to payment of back federal and state taxes, penalties and interest. And, if the IRS thinks that the employer actually knew better or should have known better, the taxpayer, its employees, and its tax advisors could be faced with criminal charges (Sbarbaro, Reese & Miller, 1990).

Independent contractors who are reclassified as employees may also be eligible to receive back benefits including insurance, retirement, profit sharing and stock options. This could be very costly to a small business, possibly leading to liquidation or bankruptcy.

Reclassification of IC's to employees can conflict with benefit calculations on retirement plans and tilt the plans toward the highly compensated employees which could result in the potential loss of tax qualified status (Goldberg, 1999). The benefits issues have been highly publicized in light of the recent Microsoft and Time Warner suits, but this is beyond the scope of this research.

The purpose of our research is to investigate tests for worker classification and determine employer usage of independent contractor policies. We were interested in employers' usage of ICs and their perceived ease of use of this classification.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), at least 60% of all businesses use independent contractors and over 8 million ICs are in the work force. This is in sharp contrast to the 1950's "organization man" who worked for one organization full time for the balance of his career (Brady, 1998). The number of people working as independent contractors is increasing exponentially each year; in part, due to telecommuting, as virtual offices are being recognized as efficient modes of operation. Some people make the conversion to IC by choice while others have the independent status thrust upon them after corporate cutbacks (Fishman, 1997).

Determining the status of a worker goes well beyond referring to him or her as an independent contractor, arranging a written contract, or having the payment methods set up correctly. The important factor in determining worker status is identifying the relationship between the worker and the organization (Morfeld, 2002).

ICs are people who contract to perform services for others but do not have the legal status of employees. An individual may be classified as an IC if the employer has the right to determine the quality of the work but not the means or method of accomplishing the work (IRS Publication 539). The IC works on an irregular basis, is paid upon task completion, and is not subject to an employer's direction and control. The IC provides his or her own tools and equipment, purchases his or her own benefits, pays taxes independently from their employers, and is responsible for personal training and development (Berson, 2003; Gee & Knight, 1999; Zollars, 1996).

In contrast, an employee works at the direction and control of an employer on a regular basis. The employer dictates the tasks to be accomplished and the process by which the result is obtained. The employer provides salaries, benefits, and training to the employee. Employers are required to deduct and withhold a percentage of wages to be paid to the taxing authorities for income tax and social security purposes. An employee's success and financial growth are tied to the organization's future development. Employees usually have more job security than ICs. An employee is hired for a contract of services whereas an independent contractor is hired for a contract for services (Scott, 2004).

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF IC USE

There are many advantages for businesses to use ICs. If an organization has cyclical demands, contracting on a one-time or short-term project can be cost effective. The IC is paid to complete a task at a predetermined fee, without associated benefit costs which average 30--40% of a typical employee's salary. ICs have a specialized skill or expertise that may not be available within the organization and may be used as a neutralizer to resolve difficult situations. ICs can provide a level of flexibility to an employer that cannot be obtained with employees. Experienced ICs can save the business time and the expenses involved in training and allow the business to expand and contract their workforce as needed, quickly and inexpensively. Additionally, ICs can deduct costs that employees can not, their pay is not subject to withholdings, and the firm's payroll taxes for ICs are lower; in the large part, because FICA and State Unemployment Insurance taxes are the IC's personal responsibility.

Misclassification can have serious financial consequences for the organization. The burden of proof is on the employer. Both state and federal agencies determine worker status; each has different legal tests and different reasons for concern with worker classification. The IRS, state unemployment compensation agencies, state workers' compensation insurance agencies, state tax departments, the US Department of Labor, and the National Labor Relations Board have a interest in the proper classification of workers; each agency determines classification independently (Fishman, August 21, 1997). Independent contractors are misclassified on a regular basis. According to the GAO, an estimated 38% of employers have misclassified workers as independent contractors (Stump & Sprohge, 2004).

Issues may arise regarding fair wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, resulting in an investigation by the US Department of Labor. The previously mentioned state agencies have vested interests in the payment of income taxes or insurance premiums. Misclassification of an employee as an IC can result in fines and penalties being assessed by any of these agencies (Fishman, August 21, 1997).

If the Internal Revenue Service audits an organization and determines that employees have been misclassified as independent contractors, then the organization must pay the IRS all back taxes owed, with interest and penalties. Often employees have agreed to misclassification in order to reduce the amount withheld. The IRS can impose personal liability upon the "responsible party" who has failed to properly pay taxes. And the Department of Justice can enter the case with criminal charges. This situation can be particularly egregious as tax liabilities and activities thought to fraudulent are often not avoided by bankruptcy proceedings. Nor are they always protected by the corporate shield and maybe considered personal responsibilities.

CURRENT IRS TEST

The Internal Revenue Service uses the common law right of control test as an analytical tool for determining worker status as outlined in Revenue Ruling 87-41 (The 20 Factor Test). This 1987 ruling developed a list of 20 factors to use as guidelines in measuring control under the common law test. No one factor is decisive; in fact, all 20 factors will rarely be met. The stipulations in these guidelines generally refer to the required independence of IC's. Reference is made to an independent contractor's freedom from an employer's mandates; for example, training and instructions, set hours of work, requirement of full time status, and typical controls of how the work is to be performed. The entire 20 Factor Test may be viewed in Appendix A.

In 1997 the IRS released a new training manual for employment tax specialists and revenue officers incorporating provisions of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. The manual advises reviewers to weigh the evidence in entirety to determine if evidence of control or autonomy predominates. The most persuasive evidence of control in determining worker status is derived from three categories: behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties. Behavioral control focuses on the right to direct or control how the work is done. Financial control focuses on payment methods, services available to the relevant market, un-reimbursed expenses, and the opportunity for profit or loss. Relationship of the parties focuses on how the parties perceive their relationship. Contracts, permanency, and regular business activities are relevant in determining the relationship (IRS training materials, 1997). While philosophical in nature, at the practical level, the subjective interpretation inherent in these criteria further erodes the distinction between the two categories. From personal experience, as an employer and an IC, I have found it unreasonable to expect employers to accept so little control as that implied by the ambiguity of these guidelines.

SAMPLING OF INDUSTRIES

Every industry has a different set of issues concerning the determination of IC or employee status. Because the 20 Factor Test developed by the IRS is subjective, a consistency in application is difficult and there is great disparity in the frequency of hire and the types of positions under scrutiny. Also even different courts vacillate about classification of occupational categories. For example, between 1955 and 1975, the IRS and the courts issued six conflicting rulings concerning the classification of "gypsy chasers." (Gypsy-chasers are individuals who contract with a truck driver to unload furniture or other freight. Final verdict: they were ICs) (Sbarbaro, 1990). And our survey found that regardless of industry, it is an issue for all employers.

While the IRS does not and will not rank the factors for relevance in the determination of worker status, a review of literature yielded two previous studies that examined independent contractor court cases. Each of these studies analyzed the 20 IRS factors and ranked their relative value.

In the first study 40 cases were reviewed: they found that the court did not view all factors equally (Sumatka, 1992). The authors grouped the factors referenced in the cases under two general headings: "right to direct details of work" and "trade or business characteristics." Four of the factors (instruction, hours and sequences, right to hire, and payment and supervision of assistants) were grouped under the general heading of "right to direct details of work." Four other factors, (method of payment, realization of profit or loss, furnishing of tools and equipment, and investment in facilities) were labeled "trade or business characteristics."

In a similar study, Burns and Freeman (1996) reviewed 20 court cases and were able to identify five factors that best predicted outcome. The more often a factor appeared in a case, the more weight it carried as an indicator. The authors selected five factors as the best predictors: instructions, furnishing of tools and equipment, significant investment, method of payment, and realization of profit or loss. When they applied these factors to 20 cases, they obtained a prediction accuracy rate of 90%.

These findings clearly imply that while the factors relating to trade or business characteristics and the right of control are the most influential in determining case outcomes, control is the most important. The greater control exerted by the employer over the work performed by the individual, the more likely the courts are to rule in favor of employee status.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A survey was conducted with sixty organizations in a rural county in a southeastern state. This was a convenience sample where one of the researchers was friends with a business person in that area. The majority of the surveyed organizations (60%) were in the manufacturing and engineering field. Each participating organization had less than 500 employees, with 87% having 100 or less. The atmosphere of the workplaces and the business style of each organization differed significantly as some 32% (19) companies were very small (<30) employees. The questions asked about procedures utilized for determining independent contractor or employee status. We were interested in seeing the attention or lack thereof paid to classifying independent contractors. The survey is attached at the end.

RESULTS

The first question asked at what level in the organization was worker status determined. Fifty percent (30) of the participants replied that this decision was made by the owners, 40% (24) the Human Resources Department, and 10% (6) the supervisor.

When asked whether they had established a procedure of guidelines or a questionnaire to determine worker status, a resounding 90% (54) of the participants responded no to this question. They did not have dollar payment limit or number of days-worked limit in relation to determining independent contractor classification. This could relate to the small size of many of the organizations. This minimal concern about misclassifying workers could be a lack of knowledge of the seriousness and expense of a mistake. Only ten percent (6) had an internally published list of positions that were considered independent contractors.

Another question posed was if the organization had requested a Determination of Employee Work Status form from the IRS. None of the participants had done so. Ninety-five percent (57) felt that the determination of independent contractor status was not an issue in their company. The participants who offered comments stated that this was not an important issue to them because they were small businesses. (However, they are incorrect in this assumption). In fact, one respondent wrote that if the applicant was doing something not really important to the company, then he did not classify them as an employee. None were interested in asking the IRS for assistance in determining worker status. Several wrote that they did not want to ask the IRS for any help in anything. None of the organizations had been audited. Our conclusion from the survey is that in rural areas of the state, business owners and managers are dismally uninformed about classification of independent contractors and potential liability for their ignorance. Since none had been audited, they believed the classification to be a non-issue.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The same short survey modified for education institutions was sent to colleges and universities in the same southeastern state with 31 usable surveys returned. Respondent's business practices and personal experiences were reflected in the ten-question survey. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents confirmed the hypothesis that proper classification of independent contractors is difficult.

RESULTS

The survey reveals that the majority of those surveyed (69%) handle the independent contractor issues on a case-by-case basis with little structure in the process other than a subjective analysis of the IRS 20 Factor test. The decision to employ and the responsibility of classification usually fell with the hiring department (57%); human resources department (38%); and 5% with joint responsibilities. Only 7% of those surveyed have ever requested determination of classification from the IRS, citing the process too slow to be practical. The IRS had audited 21% of the organizations surveyed, with some penalties and damages incurred. Thirty-seven percent believed the independent contractor/employee classification to be a significant issue within their organization.

Our sample showed that only 31% had developed questionnaires or checklists from the IRS 20 Factor Test for internal use. Only one institution in our sample had used a dollar payment limit or a number of days-worked limit to determine worker status. As stated previously, there are variations in interpretation based on the subjective evaluation in determination of worker status. In higher education, the most frequently debated payments have been to adjunct faculty, instructors of non-credit courses (continuing education), guest performers or artists, guest speakers or lecturers (short duration because of expertise), and providers of professional or advisory services.

DISCUSSION

Adjunct faculty members' primary employment is usually elsewhere. They teach one or more courses per term. The college or university determines curriculum, provides materials and sets the class schedule. The university has the relationship with the student, not the adjunct faculty member. The faculty member has an ongoing relationship, only until the end of the term, with the university. A course may be cancelled or either party may terminate the relationship without liability. It does not matter that the university allows the employee considerable discretion and freedom of action, as long as the university has the legal right of control of services delivered. Universities surveyed viewed adjunct faculty as employees.

Instructors of non-credit courses (continuing education) are often considered employees based on the logic for adjunct faculty. However, if the non-credit instructor has an established business for the purpose of providing services to multiple clients, then the person may be considered an IC. Revenue Ruling 70-308 determined part-time instructors for certain occupations in the airline industry teaching non-credit courses are employees of the school. In IRS Letter Ruling 9219020, the IRS determined that an employee who performed 95% of his or her services for one employer, and only 5% to other entities was truly acting as an employee rather that as IC. A common area where this situation occurs is with those instructors who teach continuing education courses (Texas A & M University, 1998). The non-credit course category had the most variations in our survey, making it imperative that the status of instructors of non-credit courses be assessed on an individual basis.

Guest performers and artists who are not otherwise affiliated with the university may work at an event or series of events. Frequently musicians, artists, actors, noted authors, comedians, and various other performers and artists in this category are considered ICs.

Payments to guest speakers, or lecturers (short duration) are frequently paid as an honorarium. Payment for services is not contingent upon a particular result. The amount of the honorarium is generally determined according to custom rather than by business market practice. These individuals are usually from outside the university and lecture on their specific expertise. Depending on the interpretation of the IRS 20 Factor Test, varying conclusions can be drawn; however, the majority of institutions surveyed treated this group of individuals as ICs.

Providers of professional or advisory services are usually considered to be ICs. Examples of these are health care, accounting, legal, or professionals who possess a special expertise and are brought in for policy development, curriculum review or other areas in an advisory capacity.

DISCUSSION OF SMALL BUSINESS

The 1995 White House Conference on Small Business called for Congress to require that only one of four criteria, along with a written agreement, be required for making the IC designation. This group recommended the four criteria to be the realization of a profit or loss; separate principal places of business; making services available to the general public; and paid on a commission basis. Small business owners' perception and definition of an IC are quite different from that of the courts or the IRS. Small business owners' misunderstanding of the IRS's interpretation of its 20 Factor Test criteria may explain much of the misclassification that occurs. Our business sample surprised us with the lack of information and subsequent lack of concern over worker status. In interviewing some of the participants, the common refrain was that they were trying to stay in business and that worker status was not on the front burner for them.

Some of the educational institutions did have a better procedure for worker status. We found it troubling that colleges and universities who teach business practices are not following the appropriate procedures. The human resource managers at the educational institutions considered worker status to be a serious issue for them. Perhaps the fact that several had been audited and paid penalties for their mistakes made them more cognizant of the issue.

Further research would be of interest in the worker classification area. We do not believe that this one state is significantly different than others in knowledge and proper use of correct worker status. If nothing else is taken from our research, we would suggest that worker status classification could be a profitable training seminar area for a business professor to offer.

MISTAKES AND PENALTIES

Some common mistakes raise a red flag for the IRS. Assuming a written agreement is all that is needed or rehiring a former employee or retiree as a consultant in the same function will catch the eye of an auditor. Other quick ways to alert the IRS are inconsistent treatment of workers and/or the use of ICs in the integral functions of the business. Workers with similar titles, performing similar tasks, should be classified the same. Never consider a temporary employee or a rehire to be an IC when there are employees doing the same type of work. Never outsource your core competencies. The more central the function and the deeper the task is integrated within the business structure, the higher the scrutiny on whether the worker is an independent contractor or an employee (Flynn, 1997; Zahorsky, 2004).

Unintentional misclassification of an employee limits an employer's liability for income taxes to 1.5% of the employee's wages. The employer's liability for FICA taxes that should have been paid by the employee would be limited to 20% of that amount. The employee may also be assessed penalties related to the failure to withhold. If a business fails to file a Form 1099, the penalties and interest are doubled. The burden of payment is all on the employer and may not be recovered from the employee (Mister, 2001).

Intentional misclassification of employees as ICs has much steeper penalties. The employer is responsible for the full amount of income tax that should have been withheld, and the full amount of employee and employer FICA tax, interest and penalties (Employee vs. independent contractor debate, 2005). The most troubling part of this is that the IRS decides "intent." If the IRS thinks that the employer knew, or should have known better, criminal charges can be filed. A case can be made that an employer holding a degree in business should have known better. Finally, when the IRS believes the misclassification to be 'willful', criminal charges can follow (IRS Publication 539).

LET THE IRS DETERMINE STATUS

Subtle distinctions make the difference between employees and ICs. Businesses may request a determination of a worker's status by filing a Form SS-8, "Determination of Employee Work Status" with the IRS. This process is too slow to be practical, because employers and individuals must know in advance how workers will be classified for tax and wage and hour purposes, rather than having after-the-fact determinations made by government officials. However, even in light of the above, the aforementioned penalties may be accessed in any misclassification.

GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING THE RISK OF HIRING INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

The risks associated with hiring ICs can be minimized by a few common sense precautions. Use written agreements to avoid misunderstandings about services the IC is to perform, payment, deadlines, and related details. Written agreements should incorporate some or all of the IRS 20 Factors and require the worker to comply with the tax obligations of the IC status.

Obtain taxpayer identification numbers and file an IRS Form 1099 for any unincorporated IC you pay $600 or more in any year for work done in your business. Pay ICs on the payable system and require ICs to invoices for payment. Do not pay ICs on the payroll. Remember to be consistent in the way ICs are used and separate the type work your employees and ICs do.

Allow the IC to determine where and how to accomplish the task and work hours without supervision. It is up to the IC to deliver the agreed upon work. The organization may choose to accept or reject the final results. Do not give ICs office space or free equipment unless you charge the IC and they sign an equipment or office space agreement.

Hire incorporated ICs when possible. This hires the corporation and not the IC personally. Establish a file for each IC and keep good records. Retain contracts, invoices, copies of 1099 forms, and any other information that shows the worker is operating an independent business. This may include the IC's business card, stationery, listing of other companies for whom services are performed, or a copy of their yellow pages listing. Always keep IC records separate from your personnel files. Obtain a written agreement transferring copyright ownership if you hire an IC to create a written work, art, music, photo, or other work of authorship. It is best to have the IC sign such a transfer agreement ahead of time (Fishman, August 21, 1997).

CONCLUSIONS

Misclassification is a significant and complex problem for employers and for the IRS. Companies need not shun the use of ICs. The best way to avoid errors resulting in extra costs and penalties is to develop proactive employment policies and procedures. Conduct a self-audit of independent contractor practices within your organization. Focus on workers' classification based on the criteria used by the IRS, the Department of Labor, and other government agencies that the courts rely on. Determine where independent contractors are working within your organization, for how long, under what circumstances, and the type of work they are doing. If an IRS audit is performed at a later date, the organization's exposure to penalties can be reduced if good faith effort to comply can be demonstrated. If you prefer an impartial opinion of your employment practices, hire a tax accountant, tax attorney or other expert to review case by case positions within your organization. Prevention remains the best cure.

APPENDIX A

REVENUE RULING 87-41 (THE TWENTY FACTOR TEST)

1. Instruction: A worker that is subject to instruction about when, where and how to work is usually an employee. (Revenue Ruling 68-598, 1968-2 C.B. 464, and Revenue Ruling 66-381, 1966-2 C.B. 449.)

2. Training: An employee is more likely to receive training by the employer than an IC. (Revenue Ruling 70-630,1970-2 C. B. 229.)

3. Services vital to operation of organization: If the worker is subject to the typical controls of the business over how work is performed, then the individual is an employee. An employee's services are usually integrated into the business operations and are essential to the success of flow of business. (United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 1947, 1947-2 C. B. 167.)

4. Services rendered personally: The greater flexibility given the worker to designate who may perform service favors an IC status. (Revenue Ruling 55-695, 1955-2 C. B. 410.)

5. Hiring, supervising, and paying for a worker's assistants: An IC can hire, supervise, and pay assistants under a contract that states only required outcome. (Compare Revenue Ruling 63-115, 1963-1 C. B. 178, with Revenue Ruling 55-593 1955-2 C. B. 610.)

6. Regular and continuing relationship: If there is a long-term relationship without breaks, then the status is more likely to be employee. (See reference #3)

7. Set hours of work: ICs usually set their own hours. Employees work at the direction of the employer. (Revenue Ruling 73-591, 1973-2 C. B. 337.

8. Requirement of full-time work: ICs are free to work when and for whom they choose. Employees usually work for one business. (Revenue Ruling 56-694, 1956-2 C. B. 694.)

9. Working on employer premises: An employee usually works on the premises of an employer. (See reference #8)

10. Set order or sequence of work: ICs have greater freedom than employees do to establish sequence of work performed. (See reference #8)

11. Reports: Providing written or oral reports usually reflects employee status. (Revenue Ruling 70-309, 1970-1 C. B. 199, and Revenue Ruling 68-248, 1968-1 C. B. 431.)

12. Payments: ICs are usually paid by the job. Employees are paid by the hour, week, or month. (Revenue Ruling 74-389, 1974-2 C. B. 330)

13. Expenses: ICs are responsible for paying their own expenses. (Revenue Ruling 55-144, 1955-1 C. B. 483.)

14. Tools and Materials: ICs furnish their own. (Revenue Ruling 71-524, 1971-2 C. B. 346.)

15. Investment: ICs usually invest in and maintain their own work facility. (Revenue Ruling 71-524, 1971-2 C. B. 346.)

16. Profit or loss: While employee pay may reflect the profits and losses of the organization, an IC sustains a loss or profit on every job. (Revenue Ruling 70 -309)

17. Work for more than one business: ICs frequently work for more than one business. Employees are less likely to do so. (Revenue Ruling 70-572,1970-2 C. B. 221)

18. Making services available to the general public: An IC must be able to solicit employment from the public. A common way is by printing up business cards, yellow pages or other advertising. (Revenue Ruling 56-660)

19. Right to fire: An employer exercises control over its employees through the threat of termination. ICs usually cannot be discharged as long as they meet their contractual obligation. (Revenue Ruling 75-41, 1975-1 C. B. 323)

20. Right to quit: An employee can end a work relationship for no reason or good reason. An IC who quits before completing a job will breach a contract. (Revenue Ruling 70-309 IRS Publication 539; Robbins & DeFatta, 1997; Zollars, 1996)

SURVEY

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE STATUS?

Every industry has a different set of issues concerning the determination of independent contractor or employee status. The 20 Factor Test developed by the IRS is subjective and consistency in application is difficult. The independent contractor determination can cost employers a great deal in back taxes and penalties, benefits, and potential loss of qualified tax status.

Please assist our research by answering the questions to the best of your ability. Thank you for your help.

1. At what level in the organization is the final determination of employee status made?

HR-- Supervisor-- Ceo/owner--

2. Do you have an internally published list of positions that are considered independent contractors? --yes --no.

3. Do you have a $ payment limit that allows payment as independent contractor if below that amount? --yes --no. Comments?

4. Do you have a number of days-worked limit that allows payment as independent contractor if below that amount? --yes --no. Comments?

5. Have you established procedure guidelines and/or questionnaires to determine status? --yes --no. How effective is this process?

6. Is the completion of employment forms for those determined to be employees completed by the --hiring department --centralized office?

7. If you want the IRS to determine whether a worker is an employee, you can file a Form SS-8, "Determination of Employee Work Status." Have you ever requested a determination from the IRS? --yes --no. What are your feelings on this option?

8. Has the IRS audited your organization? --yes --no. Would you consider the findings to be --minimal --significant?

9. Is determination of independent contractor status an issue within your organization? --yes --no. Comments?

10. What is your industry type?--

REFERENCES

Berson, Susan A. (2003, March). Distinguishing Between Independent Contractors and Employees: Part I. Corporate Business Taxation Monthly. 12-20.

Brady, Teresa. (1998, January). Are they employees or independent contractors? Management Review. 44-45.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Washington D.C. www.stats.bls.gov Employee vs. independent contractor debate. (1999) [on-line]. www.paychex.com/payingee/ library/ indepen.html

Fishman, Stephen. (1997). Pros and Cons of the independent contractor's life [on-line]. www.nolo.com/ic/ProsCons.html

Fishman, Stephen. (1997, August 21). Independent contractors: Top 10 tips for employers. Business Week [on-line]. www.businessweek.com/enterprise/news/en70821b.htm

Flynn, Gillian. (1997, September). Independent contractor vs. employee: Get it right. Workforce. 125-127.

Gee, Edgar, Jr. & Knight, Michael J. (1999, December). Independent Contractor or Employee: How the Process Works Today. CPA Journal [on-line]. http://weblinks3.epnet.com.lib-proxy.jsu.edu

Goldberg, Adin C. (1999 February). The dangers of misclassifying workers. Management Review. 62.

Independent contractor/returning retiree issue. (2005) [on-line]. www.prounlimited.com/icissue.htm

Independent contractors. (1998, November) SHRM Legislative fact sheet. [on-line] www.shrm.org/government/factsheets/fact-ic.asp

IRS Publication 539, Employment Taxes.

IRS training materials: Independent contractor or employee? (1997, March) [on-line]. www.starkman.com/articles/indepcon.htm

Mister, William G. (2001, April). The Contingent Workforce-independent contractors or Temporary workers. Internal Auditor [on-line]. www.findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_m4153/is_2_58/ai_73750453/

Morfeld, Christina. (2002, November). Employee or Independent Contractor? 20 Questions to ask when classifying a worker [on-line]. http://accounting. smartpros.com/ x35777.xml

Muto, S.heila. (1999, May 19). Bill to assist self-employed gets new life. Wall Street Journal. CA1.

Robbins, Renee D. & DeFatta, J. A. (1997 November/December). Independent contractor versus employee: The risks of reclassification. Business Horizons. 70-77.

Sbarbaro, Philip L., Reese, Rex E., & Miller, Max E. (1990). When misclassification becomes a Crime. The Human Resources Professional. 55-60.

Satagaj, J. (1999, April). Senator bond "drops" two small business bills. Agency Sales. 29.

Scott, Jennifer. (2004, October). Employee or Independent Contractor? [on-line]. www.gowlings.com/resources/publications.asp?pubid=1028

Stump, Mitchell L. & Sprohge, Hans. (2004, May). Independent Contractor or Not? Journal of Accountancy [on-line].http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com.libproxy. jsu.edu/itw/infomark/732/188

Texas A & M University. Current issues in higher education. (1998) [on-line]. www.sago.tamu.edu/sobo/TaxManual/EmpInd.html

www.paychex.com.

Zimmermann, Raymond A. & Gowan, Mary A. (1999, January). Determinants of independent contractor status: Outcomes of U.S. court cases. Journal of Small Business Management. 14-28.

Zahorsky, Darrell. (2004). The Great Debate: Employee vs. Independent Contractor. Your Guide to Small Business Information [on-line]. http://sbinformation.about.com/ cs/laborlaws/a/contractor_p.htm

Zollars, Ed. (1996). Employee/independent contractor page. Including revenue rulings.[online]. www.wnwr.com/taxation/ic/htm

Patricia Borstorff, Jacksonville State University

Stan Newton, Jacksonville State University