JohnnyD

Manifest is the one person who I think would have to get a W-2. Everyone else could be a 1099 depending on how the business(es) are set up. The devil is in the details. Be interesting to know if anybody had sought a determination. As much as I think I can make an argument with enough substance to stand behind on instructors being independent contractors, if you look at the applicable issues in regards to the manifest person, I think you would tend to go the opposite way on every issue. I would be very interested to know if the issue has ever been challenged and if it has, what was the outcome.

A 1099 is a federal form, not an Illinois form. 1099's are generally not required to be issued to Corporations or Partnerships. Seriously, I'm not just making this up. my business is required to 1099 anyone that is not on my payroll that I pay over $600.00 to Sure. Unless that person is an incorporated entity. Here's the section of the 1099 instructions: P. Payments to Corporations and Partnerships Generally, payments to corporations are not reportable. However, you must report payments to corporations for the following. * Medical and health care payments (Form 1099-MISC), * Withheld federal income tax or foreign tax, * Barter exchange transactions (Form 1099-B), * Substitute payments in lieu of dividends and tax-exempt interest (Form 1099-MISC), * Acquisitions or abandonments of secured property (Form 1099-A), * Cancellation of debt (Form 1099-C), * Payments of attorneys' fees and gross proceeds paid to attorneys (Form 1099-MISC), * Fish purchases for cash (Form 1099-MISC), * The credits for clean renewable energy bonds and for Gulf tax credit bonds treated as interest and reported on Form 1099-INT, and * Federal executive agency payments for services (Form 1099-MISC). For additional reporting requirements, see Rev. Rul. 2003-66 on page 1115 of Internal Revenue Bulletin 2003-26 at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb03-26.pdf.

A 1099 is a federal form, not an Illinois form. 1099's are generally not required to be issued to Corporations or Partnerships. Seriously, I'm not just making this up.

What you're talking about is an independent service (like hiring a lawyer), which is indeed true independent contractor. However this seems to be not what the article is about - it is about misclassified workers (who apparently have one or more "employers" and getting most of their income from there). No, I'm referring to an incorporated entity. An S-Corp can be a one person company and you don't have to issue a 1099 to S-Corps or Partnerships unless they are in the category of people who are required to be issued a 1099 (lawyers are in this category).

>Who requires the hours They are specified by the USPA and mfrs issuing the ratings. The dzo is limited to operating during those hours. The issue is control. This is not in the dz's control. >How many hours Entirely dependent on workload. No two ways about it. No students, no work. Rain, no work. Too windy, no work. The issue is control. This is not in the dz's control. >Who owns the equipment Could be the dz. Could be the instructor. Could be a third party. Regardless of who owns it, the instructor has to have the rating to use it. The issue is control. This is not in the dz's control.

Manifest is the one person who I think would have to get a W-2. Everyone else could be a 1099 depending on how the business(es) are set up.

If you are an incorporated entity and have indicated that on the form W-9 on file, the customer is not required to issue you a 1099. As such, most people do not. The actual income of an independent contractor that is reported to the IRS is usually only a fraction of reality, unless they are in the category of people who are required to be issued a 1099.

Doesn't matter? I guess Perris and Eloy will be going to night jumping only during the summer then. If it also doesn't matter that it takes a mfr rating to jump specific tandem gear, then I guess the ratings are worthless. The point I'm making is that the dz can argue (I'm betting this argument has been made successfully) that they do not have sufficient control over their instructors to necessitate that they be W-2 employees. Take it for what you want. You can always protest your 1099 and see where you get. the requirements to do the job do not determine if you are or are not an employee. Let me be as direct as possible. Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories. Behavioral Financial Type of relationship A very strong argument can be made (and I assume has been successfully made) that a skydiving instructor does not meet any criteria that would necessitate being classified as a W-2 employee as opposed to an independent contractor. Again, you are free to protest your 1099. Are you planning on doing so?

I think there probably are some cases where that may be true, but I would imagine it would necessarily involve responsibilities that are far more reaching than being an instructor and when the person is acting as an instructor, I would expect they would be doing so as an independent contractor. I would think they would be a W-2/1099 hybrid.

Doesn't matter? I guess Perris and Eloy will be going to night jumping only during the summer then. If it also doesn't matter that it takes a mfr rating to jump specific tandem gear, then I guess the ratings are worthless. The point I'm making is that the dz can argue (I'm betting this argument has been made successfully) that they do not have sufficient control over their instructors to necessitate that they be W-2 employees. Take it for what you want. You can always protest your 1099 and see where you get.

On the other side: I would argue that the hours are not set. You are limited to daylight hours by USPA, not the dz. You may choose not to take a student for whatever personal reason or possibly that you will not jump if the winds are too high or the temperature is too cold. The dz may supply tandem rigs, but I would argue that an instructor may or may not be able to use certain equipment based on manufacturer's approval. Also, instructors are free to use their own equipment, manufacturer permitting of course.

Skydiving instructors? I don't know of any that get a W-2. I certainly didn't when I was a full timer. Just because they did not get a w-2 doesn't mean they were not employess. Many should have been employees and got a w-2. This is the area in question and if looked into by the feds many DZO's would be found to not being correct on how they clasified the instructors and would be fined. DZO's 1099 instructors to save on unemployment, work comp and other fees associated with being an employer. On what grounds would you make the argument that tandem instructors should be W-2 employees instead of independent contractors? - I'll take the other side. -- This is hypothetical of course, but I would love it if a dzo or dz manager would get in here with real life experience. All mine is on the receiving end.

Not following you. Not sure what you're trying to say here. The training did not go into legal specific and intepitaions. It was set up to help front line managers recognize situations when contractors they may may hire may be considered "employees" by the IRS. As a company you do not want to get into that situation. So, we were trained to ask/look at the situation and ask questions like, are you (me) setting the hours?" "are you providing the training", "are you telling them how much work must get done today instead of a contract that gives a dead line and agreed to work completed". Are these proper ways to classify them as contractors or employees? Not directly. But if you answer yes to any of these there is a chance the IRS will consider them employees as opposed to contractors Gotcha. Good idea for the company to at least have policies and procedures to prevent such atrocities.

Not following you. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Skydiving instructors? I don't know of any that get a W-2. I certainly didn't when I was a full timer.

Not true. Also not true. Read here: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html There is a mountain of case law on this.

I was chatting with him about a week ago, he's doing fine and working had taking internal pics

Well, you've identified a problem there. The fix is easy.

We already do a half-assed job. Closing a few of the obvious LOOPHOLES would be a good start. Same lame response. SPECIFICS, please. I would really like to see this as a new thread with some real discussion. It seems that virtually everyone (except George who is clearly in a very small minority) is in agreement that control not confiscation is the answer. What I have yet to see is a single thought out response as to how that should be or more importantly can be accomplished.

Has Viking surfaced recently?

Actually, I think it is. Appears it was nothing more than a guy running off at the mouth and back tracking when he was called on it. It happens more often than there are minutes in the day. The real problem is when these guys go above and beyond just being f.o.s. and their behavior becomes criminal activity. Thankfully, we have established laws for this and are actively prosecuting these people.

Alive and well.

So, absent you inventing some future cime machine, just HOW do you propose to find out who's going to go 'round the bend' years in the future and prevent them from buying a gun? That's the million dollar question. How do you prevent certain people from having access to firearms without trampling on the constitutional rights of the overwhelming majority? Is it even possible?

So he's saying he doesn't want to be there. Personally, it would rub me the wrong way if he were to run for higher office.

That has been mentioned a couple of times. I've been here quite a while - as have you. A lot of people here know me, a lot don't. I deleted my profile info after the second person encountered trouble at work for what they posted here. It sucks, but that's just the way it is.