Would you take the field with this guy?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by yawetag

You have a misguided idea of a contractor/employer relationship.

The IRS disagrees with you.

There is no single dispositive criterion that delineates the difference between an employee and an IC, but the requirement to wear a specific uniform falls squarely on the employee side of the line.

If you don't believe me, ask Federal Express.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Publius

The IRS disagrees with you.

There is no single dispositive criterion that delineates the difference between an employee and an IC, but the requirement to wear a specific uniform falls squarely on the employee side of the line.

If you don't believe me, ask Federal Express.

A specific uniform? I can buy a navy shirt from at least a dozen vendors. It's not that speciifc.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Publius

The IRS disagrees with you.

There is no single dispositive criterion that delineates the difference between an employee and an IC, but the requirement to wear a specific uniform falls squarely on the employee side of the line.

If you don't believe me, ask Federal Express.

I do not know what the IRS has to do with this conversation. If you are a contractor in any profession the people that hire you can require you to do some things if they want to continue to hire you. If you are an insurance salesperson and you are a broker for a company, they can require you do follow their procedures or they can hire someone else. So not sure what you are trying to suggest in this situation by saying you can wear what you want. Of course you "can" wear or do anything you want, but that does not mean the people that decide to use you cannot change their mind and hire someone else. And the IRS has nothing to do with that. The IRS only cares how you file the money and what you try to claim on your taxes. But any independent contractor has to follow some rules, procedures or standards.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Publius

The IRS disagrees with you.

There is no single dispositive criterion that delineates the difference between an employee and an IC, but the requirement to wear a specific uniform falls squarely on the employee side of the line.

If you don't believe me, ask Federal Express.

Your picture is simplistic, at least for Ohio.

Here, the state offers licenses to officials willing to conform to their policies. If you don't want to conform, you don't get a license. This is neither an independent contractor relationship, nor an employment relationship, but a licensing relationship.

The schools who belong to the state association hire only state licensed officials. Those officials have an independent contractor relationship with the schools, who, as you point out, cannot tell them what to wear.

There are 3 parties, not 2, and two distinct types of relationship. The licensing relationship is the basis of uniform requirements, not the independent contractor relationship.