Money grubbing FBO's

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:49:46 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Q: Who is an "employee" under the law?

Which law?

Working in the software business, I'd once upon a time occasion to become
very familiar with section 1706 of the 1986 tax reform act. However...

I'd assume that an "employee" is one that receives a W2. Otherwise -
again, going with my assumption - the person is something other than an
employee. After all, we're required to submit W2s for employees.

1099.


Have you some reason to suggest use of a different - and more helpful to
my case grin - definition?



See above.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:51:54 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I'd assume that an "employee" is one that receives a W2. Otherwise -
again, going with my assumption - the person is something other than an
employee. After all, we're required to submit W2s for employees.

1099.

I found:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/manageme...icle59054.html

which claims that 1099s are not for employees but for:

any "independent contractor" who provided $600 or more of services to
your business

This is consistent with my understanding. I've tried to find instructions
on irs.gov regarding which document to file under different circumstances,
but that is eluding my searching.

Have you something which indicates that 1099 recipients may be considered
"employees"?

I'm not sure how much this would help anyway. All of the A&Ps or IAs with
whom we deal are either working at some multiperson shop or have set
themselves up as a shop that happens to be just them. In either case, no
1099 gets filed.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:51:54 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I'd assume that an "employee" is one that receives a W2. Otherwise -
again, going with my assumption - the person is something other than an
employee. After all, we're required to submit W2s for employees.

1099.

I found:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/manageme...icle59054.html

which claims that 1099s are not for employees but for:

any "independent contractor" who provided $600 or more of services to
your business

This is consistent with my understanding. I've tried to find instructions
on irs.gov regarding which document to file under different circumstances,
but that is eluding my searching.

Have you something which indicates that 1099 recipients may be considered
"employees"?

I'm not sure how much this would help anyway. All of the A&Ps or IAs with
whom we deal are either working at some multiperson shop or have set
themselves up as a shop that happens to be just them. In either case, no
1099 gets filed.

If your independent contractor does not show up for work, or violates your
rules, or gives unsatisfactory performance, what do you do?

What is the _relationship_ between you and the worker?

(The point is: anyone who works for you for money, is an _employee_; you're
reading the TAX relationship.)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

If your independent contractor does not show up for work,

An independent contractor, by definition, cannot "not show up for work".
One of the prime 13 rules that the IRS sets up to determine whether or not a
person is an i.c. is whether the person gets to set time, place, and methods
of doing the work. All you can specify is the result and the time and place
that the finished "product" is due.

"Matt Barrow" is a construction contractor. If I tell Mike that I want a
home built to thus and such a set of plans and due by October 31 on this
piece of property facing north by northwest, Matt is an i.c.. Matt can
choose to start building any day between now and 30 October if he wishes.
However, if I hire Matt by the hour to build that house, 5 days a week,
specifying each and every day what I want done, I've got an employee.

or violates your
rules,

The only "rules" you can have is to specify what the product has to be, and
when and where it is to be delivered. If the i.c. does it drunk, or high,
or standing on his head, it matters not. So long as the "contract" (i.e.
the agreement for what, when, and where) is met, there can be no other
rules.

or gives unsatisfactory performance, what do you do?

Simple. Just don't call him the next time you have a contract to let.

Jim

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

If your independent contractor does not show up for work,

An independent contractor, by definition, cannot "not show up for work".
One of the prime 13 rules that the IRS sets up to determine whether or not
a person is an i.c. is whether the person gets to set time, place, and
methods of doing the work. All you can specify is the result and the time
and place that the finished "product" is due.

And that is NOT the arrangement specified in the OP.

"Matt Barrow" is a construction contractor. If I tell Mike that I want a
home built to thus and such a set of plans and due by October 31 on this
piece of property facing north by northwest, Matt is an i.c.. Matt can
choose to start building any day between now and 30 October if he wishes.
However, if I hire Matt by the hour to build that house, 5 days a week,
specifying each and every day what I want done, I've got an employee.

Well, I've seen a lot of "contractors" that work pretty much FIXED hours.
Fixed, like 8:00AM - 5:00PM M-F,,,


or violates your
rules,

The only "rules" you can have is to specify what the product has to be,
and when and where it is to be delivered. If the i.c. does it drunk, or
high, or standing on his head, it matters not. So long as the "contract"
(i.e. the agreement for what, when, and where) is met, there can be no
other rules.

or gives unsatisfactory performance, what do you do?

Simple. Just don't call him the next time you have a contract to let.

Like Andrew, you're using TAX definition for withholding, etc., which is
beyond the original point of 'who can be denied doing work on airport
property'.

As for your point about construction, you are quite right; if I have an
issue, I go to the genera contracotr or contractor BOSS, and not his
crewmen.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:40:33 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Like Andrew, you're using TAX definition for withholding, etc., which is
beyond the original point of 'who can be denied doing work on airport
property'.

As far as I can see, there's no specific indication as to what definition
of "employee" should be used in this context. Have you seen one?

Keep in mind, we can expect at least some airports to want to direct the
MX business as they see fit. If the relationship with the airport is
cooperative and friendly, I see no problem. But if it is less so, I can
expect the airport to refer to definitions which exclude hiring an outside
firm to do the MX.

What I need is a counter to that argument.

- Andrew