Feel cheated by 1099

In court they ask you "Were you able to turn down work?".."Did you pay for anything"....etc type of things. If you say you could do whatever you want, they can't do much.

Typically 1099 seems good for guys that have child support since they try to hide a lot from what they make.

 

A 1099 can be good for a lot of people. But, don't work for a company and agree to be paid on a 1099, then whine to the IRS to force the company to pay taxes you agreed to pay yourself. If you don't want to work on a 1099, then don't. If you are not responsible enough to save money for your taxes, then find a company that pays with a w2 and pays all of your taxes for you. In any case, take responsibility for your own taxes if you agree to be paid on a 1099.

 

Why do people on this thread refuse to accept the fact that driving a company owned truck and being paid on a 1099 is against the LAW plain and simple.

 

Working on a 1099 is NOT against the law. My question is why would someone agree to work on a 1099 then call the IRS to force the company to pay taxes they should have paid themselves? No one is forced to work on a 1099. When you accept a position you know up front whether the position pays on a w2 or 1099. If you don't want to be responsible for paying your own taxes, then don't take the 1099 position. That seems simple to me.

 

If it's not illegal why does its come after employers for the taxes??? And I do agree about why take a job then cry about it later

 

They cheated on taxes. Of course you can file w2

 

Alright since you insist, pick up this months issue of the OIDA Magazine. Flip to I believe the back third of it. There is a Q&A section on that very subject. This was written by someone that is much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, and I would venture to say more knowledgeable than you also. At least he gets paid to share his accurate knowledge. Way too much said on an topic overly discussed and ridden into the ground.

 

Where did this happen?

I don't remember any court cases involving truckers and their classification.

Look guys forget the idea that it is illegal, it isn't. There are limits to it and many times those limits are surpassed.

The irs is not concern with anything but being paid, they do not care where the money goes.

If an employer treats a driver as a floor sweeper, then they classified the employee wrong and should pay them as an employee. But if the employee is autonomous in his job duties, meaning he routes himself, refuses work and so on, then he can be a 1099.

Illegal?

Nope.

But the most important thing to remember no matter what is that no one is forced to take a job, no one. You have the freedom to walk away and get another job.

 

If a trucker meets the IRS tests for independent contractor, then the driver can be paid via 1099. If not, it would be illegal in the eyes of the IRS rules and regulations (i.e. the law). Here is a tax court case that will sort out most situations. If you are the owner of the truck you are going to be ok to pass these tests. If you are not the owner, you will likely fail these tests. I agree that this should have been sorted out in advance of the driver taking the job. But sometimes drivers don't know what they are getting themselves into, and have to try to fix a bad situation.

This court case and others can by found by any internet search.

Here are the factors the Tax Court reviewed in making its determination:

• Control. P Trucking was in control of the drivers' work. The only choices made by the drivers were choice of routes and their payment of tolls. The Tax Court said P Trucking had the right to control driver work, even if it didn't exercise that right in some cases. The Court said this factor indicated employee status.
• Ownership of work tools and equipment. The drivers did not own the trucks or any other equipment needed for their work. The drivers only owned their tools, which the Court said was "insignificant" compared to the cost of the trucks. This factor also indicated employee status.
• Risk of Loss (Investment or Debt). The drivers had no indebtedness, since they had no ownership. Nor did they have any investment in the business which they would be at risk of losing. This is a major factor in favor of employee status.
• Right to terminate. P Trucking had the right to terminate the relationship at any time, as did the truckers. The Court said this factor showed that the truckers were employees.
• Work Integral to Business. The work of independent contractors is often peripheral to the business; for example, a computer company would hire a cleaning service (independent contractor). Since the work of the drivers was integral to the business, the Court stated this indicated an employer-employee relationship.
• Nature of Relationship (permanent or transitory). Independent contractors have a transitory relationship to a company, working only occasionally, not on a regular schedule. The drivers were permanent workers, working all the time, even though they had the right to refuse jobs. The Court stated this as another factor indicating they were employees.
• Existence of agreement. The Tax Court noted the written "independent contractor" agreement between P Trucking and the drivers, but it said the agreement was overridden by the other factors. (In other words, the written agreement for i.c. status is not worth the paper it is written on.)

Determination of the Court
As you can guess by their statements on each point, the Tax Court found that the drivers were "common law employees" and that the payments made to them were wages and subject to federal employment taxes. Note that the existence of a contract is not enough. The IRS and the Tax Court look at many factors in making a determination of employee or independent contractor status.

 

Some drivers have no choice and have to work for 1099 companies because of "issues" like accidents, tickets. If your working 1099 then you must pay estimated quartley taxes to the irs and state.