On February 18th, a sunny Thursday morning, a small plane crashed into the building that is home to the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas.
The Piper Cherokee PA-28, apparently piloted by Andrew Joseph Stack III, caused what one eyewitness described as a "giant fireball about 50 feet wide."
On a Web site registered to Stack, there is a 3195 word essay, which news outlets have begun describing as a suicide note.
I'm not going to dissect Stack's motives. There'll be enough of that in the news over the coming days and weeks. Company.com doesn't endorse Stack's motivations, nor are we trying to capitalize on an incident that cost (so far) two lives -- but the obscure tax reference that Stack pointed to in his essay raises questions that we can answer.
Stack notes in his essay that he and his wife had "a boatload of undocumented income." While Stack doesn't go into detail about where his tax liability came from, it is, in part, one of the contributing factors to his decision that morning. If you're in a similar position, perhaps you have accrued a large tax liability, please call an expert now. Company.com recommends a company like 2020 Tax Resolution Services. The crux of Stack's essay comes down to how Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 affected him personally, and may affect you.
In Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, there was a provision for the treatment of contract personnel. Section 1706 was a clarification and amendment of Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. Section 530 says that if you are an employer, you have two options for hiring someone. The first is as a full employee of your company, where you pay the employment taxes and offer benefits, etc. You produce a W2 for the employee at tax time. The second is that you act as a broker for them, and they are an independent contractor. You produce a 1099-MISC for them at tax time, and they pay their own self-employment taxes and purchase their own benefits.
Section 530 says that there are three requirements that an employer must consider if the employer expects to not have to pay employment taxes for the contracted individual.
1. There been a court case or IRS ruling that your business could rely on for support, or has the IRS audited your company and has not reclassified independent contractors as employees. A significant section of your industry treat similar employees in the same way. You have talked to a business lawyer who advised you that your method of classification is acceptable.
2. Your business (and any business it grew from) must treat (and have treated) similar workers as independent contractors. If you have classified these workers as employees, you should continue to do so -- and if you are currently treating them as employees, new hires should also be employees.
3. You must file all tax information correctly. If you hire someone as an employee you pay their employment taxes and provide a W2, independent contractors pay their own taxes and get a 1099-MISC.
If you are treating someone as an independent contractor and you aren't compliant with these guidelines, you are probably going to get your contractor and/or yourself into some trouble.
In 1986, the government amended Section 530 to permit employers to not be compliant if the employee/independent contractor is "an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or any other similarly skilled worker in a similar line of work."
Effectively this allowed employers to reclassify skilled employees as independent contractors and:
1. Not have to pay employment taxes for the contractor.
2. Take a cut of the contractor's income as a brokerage or agency fee.
I think that the advantages to employers are self-evident here.
In the days leading up to the Austin plane crash, Associated Press Writer, Dave Gram, reported that the "the IRS and 37 states are cracking down on companies that try to trim payroll costs by illegally classifying workers as independent contractors rather than full employees." The IRS also announced that it was about to commence a 3-year study into companies who abuse these rules.
Investigations in New York found nearly 31,500 cases of misclassification and the IRS in New York has "ordered employers to pay more than $28 million in past-due wages, taxes and penalties." Gram reported.
It's not just small-businesses that try to cut costs in this way. In recent years, Target, Comcast, FedEx Ground, and UPS have all been involved in lawsuits centering on employee classification abuse.
Hiring independent contractors is a way to reduce costs and maintain a flexible workforce in the current economic climate, but employers must comply with the rules set out in Section 530. What you should take away is this: if you are a business owner who is misclassifying full employees as contractors, either inadvertently or deliberately, the IRS will find you.
Company.com tried to reach the IRS for comment, but did not receive a response to our inquiry.
---
With thanks to Chris Thorpe of Holland Shipes Vann, Atlanta, for his inestimable help with tax legalese.







