Regulatory: The IRS wants to know if your independent contractors are really employees
Given the potentially stiff penalties, companies should exercise care in how they classify service providers
January 25, 2012 at 06:10 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The mischaracterization of employees as independent contractors has been identified as a major contributor to the rapidly growing gap between what taxpayers owe and what is actually collected. It's a gap the IRS is making renewed efforts to close.
The full extent of tax revenue lost due to mischaracterization is not known, but recent government estimates suggest nonpayment and underpayment of employment taxes contributes more than $50 billion to the almost $500 billion tax gap. The Government Accounting Office recently estimated that anywhere from 10 percent to 30 percent of employers misclassified at least some employees.
The IRS considers unpaid taxes from the misclassification of employees to be low-hanging fruit and, accordingly, has stepped up its efforts to collect those taxes. Consequently, employers would be wise to re-assess their classification of employees and independent contractors.
Every service provider must be classified as being either an employee or an independent contractor for tax purposes. There is no other classification category. Although the classification may be difficult and subtle in some cases, the classification must nevertheless be made. Generally, if the service provider is classified an employee, the employer is responsible for the withholding and payment of employment taxes. If the service provider is classified as an independent contractor, the employment taxes are the responsibility of the service provider. An employer who incorrectly classifies an employee as an independent contractor may be liable for significant penalties in addition to being liable for unpaid employment taxes.
Under common law rules, a service provider will be classified as an employee if the employer has the right to control and direct the service provider's performance with respect to both the result to be accomplished and the means of providing the services. Service providers not classified as employees will be considered independent contractors.
In determining the proper classification of a service provider, the IRS currently analyzes the following three general factors:
- Behavioral control. To what extent does the employer specify or dictate how the service provider is to perform a given task?
- Financial control. Has the employer made a significant financial investment in the service provider or does the service provider have the opportunity to share in profits or losses?
- The nature of the parties' relationship. Is the intent of the parties set forth in written agreements? Does the employer provide employment benefits to the service provider? Are the services to be provided part of the employer's regular business activities?
Prior to developing the three general factors listed above, the IRS had identified 20 specific factors to be considered in classifying services providers. The 20 factors, which are still relevant and may be used as a guide, include:
- Control of when, where and how the service provider performs services
- Training
- Integration into employer's operations
- Requirement that services be personally performed
- Control over assistants
- Length of relationship
- Work schedule
- Amount of time required to provide services
- Location where services are to be provided
- Control over techniques or sequence
- Reports to employer
- Payment method
- Work-related expenses
- Tools
- Work facilities
- Profit and loss potential
- Whether service provider has multiple employers
- Restrictions on service provider's customers or clients
- Ability of employer to terminate service provider
- Ability of service provider to terminate relationship
Federal tax law classifies certain specific service providers as employees even if they otherwise appear to be independent contractors using common law standards discussed above. For example, the IRS considers certain specified delivery persons, full-time life insurance sales agents, at-home workers who work on materials supplied by the employer and certain specified full-time traveling sales persons to be employees even if they would otherwise be classified as independent contractors. Conversely, real estate agents and direct sellers of consumer products in the home are statutory non-employees (i.e., independent contractors) even if their relationship with their employer would suggest they be classified as employees.
The collection of unpaid taxes due to misclassification of employees as independent contractors is being actively pursued by the IRS. Because the penalties for improperly classifying employees may be significant, companies should exercise care in how they classify service providers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250