1099 / Workman's Comp

[justalayman]

again, you make conflicting statements:

Therefore I have added him to my companies workmans comp as a part time installer

That sounds like an employee

He is the only person I hire

HE is the only PERSON I hire.

again, it appears you are describing an employee.


Have you gone to the links I posted? You really need to determine if he is legally an employee or legally can be considered an IC. If he can only be considered, legally, an employee, you have no choice but to pay him as an employee.

 

[tranquility]

While I agree with justalayman regarding if the person is an employee or not, getting covered by worker's comp is not a part of the determination. The criteria are different.

 

[Willlyjo]

I guess I wasn't totally clear. The installer has his own business But not a business that he needs workmans comp. Therefore I have added him to my companies workmans comp as a part time installer. Can I 1099 him? Or would he automatically be an employee when I added him to my workmans comp? I would much rather 1099 him if possible. He is the only person I hire and don't want to start with payroll taxes etc...

You claim you have a "Service and Installation Company" and you are paying someone as a "part time installer". He is definitely an employee and he must be protected under your Workers Comp. Insurance Plan. And he cannot be 1099'd because he is an employee--you must pay him as such, according to Justalayman's post.

 

[Zigner]

From this:

If he is an Independent Contractor, he is not an employee! Therefore, you don't have to protect him with Workers Comp. Insurance.

To This:

You claim you have a "Service and Installation Company" and you are paying someone as a "part time installer". He is definitely an employee and he must be protected under your Workers Comp. Insurance Plan. And he cannot be 1099'd because he is an employee--you must pay him as such, according to Justalayman's post.

And Willy claims he doesn't flip-flop

 

[Willlyjo]

From this:



To This:

And Willy claims he doesn't flip-flop

Who is flip-flopping? You are way out of control with your total lack of reading comprehension!

The OP hasn't indicated one way or the other exactly what the IC/employee did on his behalf until his last post, which clearly shows the IC was working in the capacity as an employee for the OP, which means the OP has to protect him AS AN EMPLOYEE with Workers Comp. Insurance.

I think you should read over the thread much more closely rather than make such ignorant comments that really, are nothing more than fabrications based on your total lack of understanding what is said in my posts.

 

[Zigner]

Who is flip-flopping?

Ummm...you. This is just more of your circus-bike stunt riding.

 

[quincy]

Ummm...you. This is just more of your circus-bike stunt riding.

In Willly's favor, however, is his very very cool-looking clown outfit. Love the polka dots.

 

[Willlyjo]

In Willly's favor, however, is his very very cool-looking clown outfit. Love the polka dots.

There goes your imagination again. Ah...such is the life of fantasy in an internet forum.

 

[quincy]

There goes your imagination again. Ah...such is the life of fantasy in an internet forum.

Yup. Imagination is a great thing.

One major difference between us and our imaginations, though, Willly, is that I don't use my imagination when providing legal advice. When I provide legal advice, I base my advice on my educational studies, on what I have learned in my work, on legal research, and on the different state statutes and case law.

The ruffled collar does look nice on you. It brings out the red in your nose.

 

[tranquility]

While I often disagree with quincy regarding the import, theory and purpose of Intellectual Property law, I NEVER disagree with his statement of the current law. (Maybe once. Maybe.) He does not "imagine". Again, while I would love to be the person on the other side of the table (Banging on it if appropriate.) in an argument, he gives a totally different type of response than Willyjo.

Willyjo may have some cleverness and is not always totally wrong. English is a funny language and many things can be said with the same words...depending on the context. But, quincy is one I'd take to the bank. If I would disagree, I'd certainly look up the case law first. W? I would just disagree.

 

[quincy]

While I often disagree with quincy regarding the import, theory and purpose of Intellectual Property law, I NEVER disagree with his statement of the current law. (Maybe once. Maybe.) He does not "imagine". Again, while I would love to be the person on the other side of the table (Banging on it if appropriate.) in an argument, he gives a totally different type of response than Willyjo.

Willyjo may have some cleverness and is not always totally wrong. English is a funny language and many things can be said with the same words...depending on the context. But, quincy is one I'd take to the bank. If I would disagree, I'd certainly look up the case law first. W? I would just disagree.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that my responses to legal queries are of a totally different type than Willly's. For that, I thank years of education (and God).



(You disagree with me on IP law, tranq? I had no idea. . . .)

 

[quincy]

bumping spam off main page