ameri resources

Need an office in metro Detroit, Alabama or Toronto? Office suites, meeting rooms, virtual offices, network access

free downloads

USA: "U.S. Economic & market review: First quarter 2008"

USA: "U.S. Economic & market review: First quarter 2008". 8-page review by Deloitte.

proceed to download

USA: Employees vs. Independent Contractors: A Benefits Perspective

The Internal Revenue Code provides significant tax benefits to employers that sponsor tax-favored retirement and health/welfare plans. For employers, the cost of providing benefits coverage may be deducted from taxable income, while plan participants are not taxed on the value of benefits received at that time (although for retirement plan contributions, they may be taxed on funds withdrawn at a later date).

These tax benefits are available only if the employer sponsoring the plan does not discriminate against its rank-and-file employees. Determining who are in the group of covered employees for discrimination testing is critical to the analysis.

Tax Laws vs. Business Objectives

The tax code's nondiscrimination norm might run counter to the employer's business objectives to increase staffing flexibility and to provide greater benefits to those individuals who are judged most valuable. As a result of this tension, sponsors have outsourced some functions to independent contractors and outside employment agencies. Because the discrimination rules apply only to employees of the plan's sponsor, this technique might work. However, there are significant problems if a court or the IRS should decide to recharacterize the workers as employees. Careful planning is required to minimize this risk.

Employers and their advisors have used several techniques to limit the group of workers that are covered by benefit plans. Before the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), some employers divided their operations into multiple business entities with one business employing high-paid employees who earned generous benefits and another business employing rank-and-file employees who earned no or minimal benefits. This technique was limited by ERISA's controlled group rules, which resulted in the aggregation of employee groups for discrimination testing purposes. Other techniques were developed by benefit advisors, leading Congress and the IRS to eliminate strategies intended to restrict benefits to the higher-paid group.

Some businesses—often startup enterprises—have tried to enhance their workforce flexibility by designating workers as independent contractors. Frequently, the relationship between the parties is memorialized in a written agreement in which the worker acknowledges that he is an independent contractor and that he is ineligible to participate in the recipient's benefit plans. However, the courts and the IRS are not bound by the parties' characterization of their relationship.

Classification Factors

In determining the appropriate classification of the workers, the IRS uses 20 factors that are described in regulations. The IRS has divided these factors into three broad categories: behavioral control, financial control and the type of relationship.

• Behavioral control examines whether the recipient of the services has the authority to direct and control the work of the service provider and considers whether the worker receives instruction and training.

• Financial control examines whether the worker can realize a profit or loss and whether he or she has unreimbursed expenses.

• The relationship element focuses on the text of any agreement between the parties and whether the worker receives benefits.

Note that none of the various factors is dispositive on its own and that the relationship between the parties might change over time—which could alter the appropriate characterization of the parties' relationship. (For more guidance, see the IRS brochure Independent Contractor or Employee.)

Misclassification Penalties

An employer that fails to characterize individuals as employees when they fit that designation will owe back taxes and penalties. In addition, the cost of extending benefit coverage several years after the fact might be a significant burden. An employer might have to pay for accrued health claims that the worker paid out of pocket. A health carrier or stop-loss provider might refuse to pay these claims, and the employer would have to pay the entire cost of the benefit received.

If in Doubt, Seek Advice

Employers should confer with legal counsel to determine the appropriate classification of workers. If the issue is in doubt, particular attention should be paid to the language in the benefit plan documents describing the eligible class of covered individuals. Careful drafting might eliminate many unintended consequences of an employer's misclassification of workers.

Source: SHRM - GAI

previous page

go top

search our site

Loading

Other articles from the same issue (April,  2012).

How The U.S. Automobile Industry Has Changed
read on

Ontario dealerships file lawsuits against parts suppliers
read on

Canada: Tie wages to subsidies, study says
read on

Auto bailout worked but what next?
read on

Hybrid and electric cars see record sales in March
read on

Auto industry should help drive Ontario economy faster in 2012
read on

New Study Highlights the Financial Contribution of the Automotive Industry to State and Federal Tax Revenues
read on

Happy days are here again for auto industry
read on

Funding Announcement Under Automotive Partnership Canada
read on

The Texas-Mexico Automotive Supercluster (TMASC) Turns Three
read on

US Faces Off With China Over Rare Earths
read on

Survey Finds Optimism High Among U.S. Manufacturing And Service Executives
read on

Shale gas: A renaissance in US manufacturing?
read on

USA: A Manufacturing Renaissance: Four Goals for Economic Growth
read on

U.S. Manufacturing Nears the Tipping Point: Which Industries, Why, and How Much?
read on

Made in USA (Again): Why Manufacturing Is Coming Home
read on

Yes, There Is a Future for Manufacturing in Canada
read on

Canada’s manufacturing sector isn’t competitive
read on

USA: Attention all employers (unionized or not!) – Does your social media policy violate the NLRA? Top 10 lessons from the NLRB in 2011
read on

Manpower Survey Shows Incremental Improvements in Hiring Intentions Add Up to More Promising U.S. Jobs Outlook
read on

2012 Global Outsourcing and Insourcing Survey
read on

IRS Cracking Down on U.S. Expat Taxpayers
read on

Canada introduces new program to attract skilled workers
read on

Oklahoma City, Nashville Ranked Most Cost-Attractive Business Locations Among Mid-Sized U.S. Cities: Study
read on

Canada: Economic Confidence Makes a Comeback
read on

U.S. Employee Handbooks: Best Practices
read on

USA: Employees vs. Independent Contractors: A Benefits Perspective
read on

The Great Tax Offshoring Debate: And how stakeholders can move beyond it
read on

North America Update: global headlines
read on

Our Free eJournals

 
   
 

subscribe to eJournals


View our blogs:

The Asian Automotive Industry Market

The Brazil Automotive Industry Market

The Chinese Automotive Market

The European Automotive Market

The Global Automotive Market (HR edition)

The Indian Automotive Market

The Mexican and Latin Automotive Market

The U.S. Automotive Market

GlobalAutoExperts

To visit GlobalAutoExperts Directory, click here.