PIAA & Insurance
 

This is a FYI alert for Pennsylvania/PIAA officials.

If you are a PIAA umpire or referee, you may have received an email from PIAA that it has discontinued insurance (without, of course, a compensatory reduction in dues). With the fall sports season just several weeks, we've just begun hearing that schools (some schools, at least) will not hire officials without insurance, and my soccer chapter is scrambling to make sense of this and how to deal with it. PIAA has provided a link to NFHS insurance (through a group called National Federation of Officials Association), but that seems like PIAA and NFHS collusion, to keep our dollars "in-house."

Anyway, winter and spring sports chapters have more time to figure this out, but I suggest starting now.

Join NASO.

MTD, Sr.

Take a stand.
1. Refuse to pay for the insurance which you are no longer receiving. It is fine if the state association no longer wishes to have officials procure their insurance through that office, but they can’t continue to charge for it. Insist that your dues are reduced by the proper amount or have your officials not pay any of it. This hits the state office in the pocketbook.

2. What does your contract say with the state? Is there a timeline or notice period which must be given when changes are made?

3. You have several options for obtain your own insurance. NASO, NFHS individual membership, NFHS group plan (at a discount, inquire), private insurance from a company, etc. Find out what the requirements are where you officiate and who sets those levels. Is it the state office? The schools? The school district? What is needed $1M in liability? Negligence coverage? Personal medical?

4. If your group informs all of the schools that PIAA dropped your insurance and your officials may not now have the necessary time to obtain outside coverage, what are they going to do? Are there other officials in your area which they could use for soccer? If not, would they cancel the contests? You have leverage. Think about your angles and how you wish to proceed.

All good suggestions, Nevadaref, all of which occurred to me, as well. But there are problems, probably insurmountable at this point, especially considering how large a state we are and the difficulties in getting people to consider their mutual interests and join a boycott or union.

We're only two weeks away from the start of soccer; we're a big state, with disparate elements (east/west, urban/rural), and a lot of anti-union animus. Just getting definitive answers to the questions in #3 would take longer than we soccer officials have.

As you may know, we had a union briefly, formed by lacrosse referees around Pittsburgh, until that was shot down several months ago by the US Court of Appeals for DC. Perhaps not coincidentally, PIAA announced its insurance decision shortly after that, citing, in part, the court's ruling.

MTD, I looked at NASO: $116 a year, a lot of money. The NFHS-affiliated association is $35, or $25 with 50+ members, but I rather not give money to NFHS.

NASO offers a discounted rate to groups. My football association is a member of NASO, so I pay a discounted rate of $79 to be a NASO member through it. In this manner I receive liability insurance, excess medical insurance, and the other benefits of NASO membership for a reduced rate. Perhaps your association can negotiate a group rate with NASO that isn't too onerous to your membership. The insurance purchased through NASO is good for all sports, so no need to worry about purchasing separate packages for each sport.

Can you post the e-mail you received? I couldn't find any news articles (not that I was necessarily expecting to).

This is one of those situations where a boycott would absolutely be justified.

Sadly we all know there are too many scabs in this business to make that work.

I must have deleted the first email informing us of the board decision to rescind the insurance coverage, and I also checked the PIAA website for an announcement, but did not see one. Here is the paragraph about the NFHS-allied alternative:

"Recently PIAA Board of Directors decided to eliminate insurance from officials. PIAA has been in touch with the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) which provided information regarding their insurance program. Details may be found by clicking this link...."

There's not much enthusiasm around here (SE PA) for collective action, as evidenced by the lack of enthusiasm for the now-defeated union. Indeed, there would be plenty of scabs if a boycott were instituted.

If I can dig up the original email, I'll post it.

Are you talking about liability insurance or some other form of insurance?

Officials will eat their own.

About 12 years ago, I was the UIC and assigner for a men's baseball league. I told the umpires that they need to ask for more money -- that they were underpaid and they should be looking for at least $20 more per game.

Quite a few people acted as if they were being given a favor by getting those assignments. Frankly, if only a dozen people sat out, there would've been games uncovered every day.

Then about 6-8 years ago, a local high school basketball conference decided to go back to 2-official crews at the varsity level after working 3 for a few years. When the top officials in the area said they weren't going to work the games, officials who couldn't get those assignments crawled over the backs of fellow officials to get those assignments. That experiment lasted 2 years. They went back to 3 officials and the better officials went back. I would retire before working any game of meaning in a 2-person crew. I did that for enough years.

A lot of officials simply can't stand the idea that they might better the working conditions by not working.

The PIAA must be about the most anti-official state association in the country.

While the OhioHSAA has gotten better, it can be a schmuck from time to time with regard to officials.

MTD, Sr.

Requiring football officials to take their books to the field to appease disgruntled coaches doesn't reflect well on them.

I grow weary of the holier-than-thou rhetoric that too often gets spewed in this business.

"We owe it to the schools to work."
"The kids deserve to play."
"The schools are too poor for a $5 pay increase."

It's too bad that so many scab officials will sell their souls for any price. It makes it impossible for the good guys to make significant change.

Mark, Jr., and I have never taken our rules books to the court or baseball and softball diamonds, but we always have our rules books in the dressing room for basketball or our car for baseball and softball games. If the need to go to the rules book we can retire to the quiet of the dressing room or go to the car.

MTD, Sr.

Below is the text of the email we received, addressing the unionization and insurance issues; that part of our yearly dues formerly for insurance will now be used by PIAA to recoup its legal expenses.

Dear Registered Sports' Official:

The purpose of this communication is to update you with information regarding your registration as a PIAA sports official. It is to this matter I will direct my comments.

As many of you may be aware for the past four years, PIAA has been opposing an adverse decision of the Regional National Labor Relations Board in Pittsburgh that classified lacrosse officials in PIAA Districts 7 & 8 as PIAA employees. The National Labor Relations Board on a 2-1 vote sustained the regional directors' decision. Two weeks ago, the District of Columbia Circuit, by a unanimous 3-0 vote, reversed this decision and held that PIAA lacrosse officials are independent contractors and are not employees of PIAA. If you would like to read this court decision, please click here. This decision confirmed our view and probably most of yours that you are independent entrepreneurial contractors who are free to solicit and reject assignments for games for various organizations based upon your own personal preferences.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals relied heavily upon the facts that PIAA-member schools, not PIAA, pay you during the regular season; that each season is a relatively short duration; and that PIAA does not exercise significant control over the calls made by officials during a game or contest. As the Court of Appeals noted: "Telling an official to call a game fairly is hardly akin to instructing a worker how to work."

There have been countless hours spent defending your right to maintain independent contractor status. As we move forward, it is necessary to make some adjustments to avoid an increase in your registration fees. One such action is the Board of Directors, at the recommendation of the Budget Committee, has decided to no longer provide insurance for registered officials since the actual number of claims have been minimal over the past decade, the high premium costs, and the Court's decision that providing insurance coverages may have made it more likely for you to be considered an employee. If you'd like to explore the possibility of continuing coverage, please contact the NFHS Officials Program for registration which may include certain insurances.

We would like to thank the thousands of registered sports officials that believe in the avocation of interscholastic sports officiating and your support of the mission of PIAA to provide healthy, safe and fair athletic competition for student-athletes. Your support of brother and sister sports officials as well as our member schools has not gone unnoticed.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. We're looking forward to seeing many of you at this year's 25th Annual Officials' Convention that will continue to highlight those of you who are so willing serve our student-athletes.

One Less Bell To Answer (The 5th Dimension, 1970)...
 

Smart thinking on their part.

Res Judicata
 

The appellate court ruled that we are not employees, but independent contractors, thus PIAA won the case. PIAA then justified rescinding our insurance because, in part, it could be seen as proof we are employees--an issue PIAA had already prevailed on (and therefore can't be relitigated).

This action is just a big middle finger from the PIAA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Winning that case doesn't mean there can't be more. In today's sue-happy climate, it is sure to resurface.

They just want to avoid giving people a reason to try to stick to them again. It cost them enough. Do people thing their costs from the whole ordeal were going to just get covered with monopoly money?

I can't blame them for reducing their exposure to risk.

Nope, can't be raised again, at least not in PA. The caption of the case is PIAA v. NLRB, denominating the parties. The ruling of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit* is binding on the NLRB. If another group of PA officials were to claim employee status and try to unionize, the claim would go to and through the NLRB, which would be bound by precedent.

PIAA is passing on the cost of litigation to all registered officials, not just those who sought to unionize, and, as far as I know, not to its member schools.

Yep. Teaching us not to mess with the powers that be.

Only until some other condition of the arrangement is changed. In that case, the ruling may no longer hold. Some lawyer, looking to pad his/her income, would be sure to at least make that argument.
Who else can they pass it on to? There isn't some magic money source. When people sue the government looking for a payday, all the citizens pay, not some nebulous body with a money printing machine.

Their membership. The member schools should be paying the cost of defending litigation or their insurance company.

If you were arguing that the schools should be paying more in general, I'd agree with you, but the schools didn't cause this expense. The PIAA membership also includes officials and that is the group that caused them to incur the expense, even if it wasn't all of them. Why should the schools have an extra bill because some officials wanted to take them for something? And even if they did pay for it, why should I (as a tax paying citizen) have to pay for it?

I agree with Rich. Charging the officials to cover a debt incurred by the PIAA while litigating a case against some officials in PA has to be unethical, if not outright illegal. I would argue that it is a punitive action being taken by the PIAA. If I were an official in PA, would refuse to pay that part of the dues. My next step would be to contact my local rep to the state legislature in an attempt to get the state legislative body to pass a resolution stating that the PIAA cannot pass along the costs incurred from the recent litigation of this case to the officials. If that isn’t successful, I would then sue in court on the grounds that the PIAA is a punitive manner. There to be precedent out there to prevent one side from taking such action against its adversary in prior litigation.
Imagine if a government contractor sued the government, then after the case was over the government took steps either to ban that contractor from future government work or impose fees upon that business whenever it applied for contracts or services future contracts. That would have to be seen as improper.

How is the PIAA funded? If it receives state funds, then you as a taxpayer already are footing the bill.
In my state, the NIAA is a state agency codified by legislative statutes, but receives no state funding. (Well, not directly.) Its budget comes from corporate sponsorships, private donations, ticket sales at events, and membership dues of the schools and the officials. It can certainly be contended that the money coming from the dues of the member schools which are public schools is basically state funding just being passed along.

For the record, I’ve never understood why the officials ever agreed to paying dues to the state assn. The officials provide a service to the member schools who are collectively represented by the state office. The state assn doesn’t provide anything to the officials. Here the state doesn’t provide any training or education, doesn’t do any assigning, and doesn’t pay the officials. Why the heck are the officials paying this organization? It is basically a forced donation.

MTD, does your NASO insurance include medical expenses and such, or just liability against assaults and getting sued and such? It's not clear to me from the website.

CIAC Officials’ Association ...
 

Here in Connecticut, the CIAC Officials Association exists to work in concert with school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and the CIAC to advance the best interest of high school athletics, serve the betterment of all member officials and their respective organizations, promote ethical standards, sportsmanship, professionalism, and high quality officiating.

The CIAC handles the coordination between the schools schedule software and the officials Arbiter assigning software. It handles 100% (including cost) of all criminal background checks. Officials have a "seat at the table" to discuss issues that are important to us. Basketball officials (actually all sports officials) get a CIAC membership card that gets us into all regular season sports (all sports) at no cost, and into all basketball (only basketball for basketball officials) state tournament games at no cost.

CIAC dues are $13.00 annually, included as part our local boards annual dues. Attend two or three state tournament games, especially the state finals at the Mohegan Sun Casino, and it's a bargain.

We get our books and insurance from the SCHSL, plus they're now requiring background checks which of coursed was passed onto us.

The argument that all PA sports officials should bear the cost of defending the lawsuit when a small group of officials brought the suit is just silly.

Officials are not part of the membership -- they are independent contractors. If the state decides to remove this insurance coverage and doesn't lower the fee, then the officials should do what they feel is necessary, including not working the games unless their fees are lowered and/or their insurance coverage is reinstated. And the PIAA should recover its fees by raising membership dues on its member schools or on advertisers, etc. like any other business.

Schools requiring officials to bring their own coverage would get a quick message -- good luck having your games cause we're not coming.

I agree with the poster above. The "it's for the kids" mentality and officials continuing to bend, bend, bend is why officials are horribly underpaid and why fees stagnate for years on end. And why working conditions are the way they are. State associations just expect officials to take it....and then cry out that there's a horrible shortage. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

When you pass the PIAA test in a sport, you have to affiliate with a local chapter.

I pay $45 per sport (basketball and soccer) to PIAA, plus another $30 to my two chapters. We pay our own costs for background checks, which are good for five years and then must be renewed. For my yearly outlay of $150, I get a rule book in each sport, plus the basketball case book. That's it. Some chapters also provide the basketball referee manual; chapters usually offer an end-of-season "banquet" to its members.

PIAA is not a state agency, nor does it get federal or state funds. According to its website, it is a non-profit, "voluntary membership" organization and its primary source of revenue, again according to the website, is ticket sales to championship events. Member high schools pay between $475 and $625 yearly, depending on school size, and middle schools pay $265, and these fees constitute ~10% of PIAA's revenue. There are currently 1,431 HSs and 594 MS/JHSs.

Nevadaref's questions strike home--what do I get for my $150 a year?

Game Fees ...
 

Just got this a few days ago:

Game Fees for 2019-2020
Scrimmage Fee: $150.00 (3 officials $50.00 each, 2 officials $75.00 each)
Varsity Fee: $98.47 (two person)
Sub Varsity Fee: $63.89 (junior varsity, freshman, and middle school)

In a high population concentration, geographically small, state like Connecticut, we're kept close to home and travel time/distance isn't an issue.

Automatic fee increase every year (no more yearly contract negotiations in smoke filled back rooms) is based on the average teacher raise in the state (1.3% this past year).

My local annual dues: $100.00, plus 7% assignment fee.

Maybe it's nice to officiate in 100% IAABO "Monopoly" Connecticut.

Maybe it's nice to have officials seated at the CIAC table.

Of course Connecticut does have a relatively high cost of living.

It's all relative.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.y...=0&w=231&h=162

Completely agree.

Officials are the only ones that take heat for expecting to be paid commensurately with their services. No one bats an eye when state associations do shady stuff like the PIAA is doing, at least not to the extent that they are forced to do something about it. No one would dare suggest that the "poor" schools offset nominal pay increases for officials with higher gate fees, while they have no problem shelling out the funds for new stadiums, fields, gyms, scoreboards, and uniforms.

Too many officials without a backbone and the "for the kids" political correctness from all parties (often hypocritical at that) has led to all this crap.

Why should you as a tax payer foot the bill for any costs associated with hiring officials for sports contests?

If you're paying that much, I'd question it too. We pay less than half of that (around $70) and that covers the books, the background check, and liability insurance, and a few other things. Not sure what services PIAA is supposedly giving you for $150.

I retract my comments earlier given that it seems they're gouging you to start with. If they were charging minimal amounts and scraping by, I'd see where they'd need to cut the insurance (or something) to get by and cover the costs.

Because public schools have athletics, and public schools are funded by the taxpayers.

Because I have happily agreed to pay for the schools and the programs they offer. I have not agreed to pay for a frivolous lawsuit by people that likely knew they'd be unsuccessful but want to see if they could get a free lunch. If there were a way to charge them with the expenses, they should do that but that is likely to end up being more expensive and more difficult than cutting some expenses.

This really gets overblown far more than it actually occurs or has practical impact in reality. By rule, a coach in every NFHS state is entitled to ask for a coach/referee conference. All this does is require the books to be there for a quick reference in the extremely unlikely event that it isn't clear, a small extension of the existing coach/referee conference. It almost never gets to that point - but the very few times it has, having the books there has proven invaluable.

Huh? What are you talking about?
Which sport does this reference apply to?

Why did the prevailing side in the court case not get awarded court costs and attorney fees?
That is how the costs of the litigation should have been covered.

The appeal was from an administrative agency, the NLRB, captioned PIAA v. NLRB, after the NLRB ruled that officials are employees of PIAA. The appellate court reversed the decision of the NLRB, holding that officials are independent contractors, not employees. Although my labor law experience was about 40 years ago, I think that the rules about losers paying costs don't apply in such cases.

If the coach isn't convinced that a rule is being correctly applied, it should be his job to prove it.

MTD made a comment about Ohio's history of being anti-official. I responded that the requirement that football officials have in that state to take their books to the field with them (discussed in the football forum in the past) doesn't reflect well on Ohio. Scrounge responded to my comment.

That would be a valid argument if the lawsuit were truly frivolous? But the officials (complainants) won the initial court case. And as has been pointed out, the PIAA has a history of less than scrupulous business practices.

Just to clarify: the initial "case" was not a law suit, but a complaint filed with the NLRB. After the NLRB ruled in the officials' favor, finding them (us) employees, not independent contractors, PIAA appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which hears administrative agency appeals. That court decided, 3-0, we are not employees but independent contractors.*

After the NLRB decision, there was a parallel class action law suit filed by several officials, claiming PIAA was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for not paying minimum wage. That was recently settled for a $260,000 award to the plaintiffs. I assume the plaintiff lawyers will get their cut, then the remainder will be divided among the officials who opted in to the class action.

Regardless of the merits of the two legal actions, regardless of who pays how much in taxes, and regardless of the value of PIAA membership, there remains the propriety of PIAA's timing, announcing the end of our insurance with little time for officials to scout out meaningful alternatives.

*Like issues in sports, where the rules don't specifically apply to novel situations, the traditional test for employee status does not really address the conditions under which we work in PA. We must be PIAA-certified to work school games, we're assigned by assigners who contract with leagues to provide officials, we're paid by the individual schools, all of which is governed by PIAA rules. PIAA also controls the rules, mechanics and even our uniforms--that is, the terms and conditions of employment. (Think of it this way: a labor union--say, carpenters--decrees that all union carpenters must wear blue pants, red shirts with the union logo, and black shoes. Appropriate?) The original argument before the NLRB was novel and unusual, not frivolous.

Well, all I know is this. The "independent contractor" argument is complete hogwash in many instances. Just because you are called one in form doesn't mean you are in substance.

Assigners and state associations use this copout when it's convenient for them while exercising a level of control on officials that, more often than not, can be construed as one of an employee/employer relationship.

And the NLRB agreed with you. The federal Court of Appeals disagreed. We used to say about judges, "Often wrong, but never in doubt."

What I was trying to point out is that our relationship with PIAA is, imo, neither that of employment nor independent contractor, but a hybrid.

I'm curious if this will impact the college game. I know that for the Patriot/Ivy contracts, those refs weren't allowed to officiate HS basketball. I'm not sure how well a non-compete clause will read under the general idea of an IC. All but one of my assignors requires attendance at "summer/staff training camps", where they are just cashing in on my legs. Uniform requirements, numerous e-mails on how to adjudicate plays, reports that must be filed, etc.

Sure the NCAA has insulated themselves from this, but conference guys? That'd be fun to see.

It will have zero impact on the Patriot/Ivy or any college conferences.

No official who has any desire to advance and/or remain college basketball is going to challenge the legality of an assigner's policies to his face, and certainly is not going to bring a lawsuit. Career suicide.

There is no shortage of officials who will diligently adhere to assigners' rules and "non-compete agreements."

Was it actually written into the contract, or was it a gentlemen's agreement? Was it a supervisor requirement or was it a requirement of the Patriot/Ivy consortium?

And to be clear, it was not a "non-compete" clause. Patriot/Ivy officials work(ed) in many other college conferences.

Non-compete clauses are what we have at the HS level, where some assignors/commissioners attempt to prevent their officials from working with other associations, especially associations who won contract bids over said association.

You're not wrong about high school, but that crap happens in college too (less the associations). Not saying it does in the Patriot/Ivy at all, but it happens.

There's a D2 supervisor in the Southeast who pretty much blacklists officials that work for a certain JuCo guy (as you know).

Full disclosure, I'm in no way associated with Patriot/Ivy. It's simply something I've heard from every one of those guys I worked with. I guess it was a gentlemen's agreement. I'd still call it a non-compete clause since you were barred from working other amateur athletic events.

But assume (and I'm of the same mind, I don't expect anyone to ever try it), someone did try and unionize college refs. Could this case be used as precedence? And like someone else said, this avocation is full of dudes who will work for peanuts if it means they get games.

And we have a certain Mid-Atlantic guy that gets pissed if you work for a JuCo guy. We got a memo stating that if you couldn't open up dates from that one guy, just go ahead and quit. Real IC, there.

Not sure, I'm not a lawyer. There is too much money and perceived "prestige" the higher up you go for officials to press the matter and risk their careers. And there's no guarantee that a case would be successful, anyway.

I may not be qualified to give legal analysis, but I don't have to be a lawyer to know that this crap and the crap Raymond has dealt with is the antithesis of IC status. But the assigners will say "You are an independent contractor, if you don't like my terms you can leave." That doesn't really hold water. I can quit my real job if I don't like my boss or her rules, too. The difference is an employer legally has a right to tell you how to work and who you can work for.

In the case I mentioned above, the D2 supervisor had about a dozen JuCo schools and lost them to another JuCo supervisor. Obviously he was upset about this and now basically gives his D2 guys a "him or me" ultimatum.

That is simply sour grapes. The guy lost the battle. He needs to win back his schools or deal with it. Telling people that they can’t work for someone else is childish.

Rational thinking doesn't exist in this business in many cases. His situation is no different. Same with the problems Raymond has had in Virginia.

As long as there are officials that will sell their souls to work so they can tell people they're a "D2 official," he has that luxury. It's funny, there are borderline JuCo officials that stuck with him over the JuCo assigner. To each his own.

Independent Contractors Or Employees ???
 

Threads like this always have me question whether, or not, basketball officials are truly independent contractors.

I always hear the term "independent contractor" tossed about willy-nilly here on the Forum, or at my local board meetings.

Perhaps the answer varies from situation to situation and from one locality to another locality.

Perhaps some of us are truly independent contractors, while others are closer to employees.

Or perhaps, it's as LRZ noted earlier, "neither that of employment nor independent contractor, but a hybrid".

Maybe somebody on the Forum with a legal background in labor relations, or a background in tax preparation, can straighten this out?

I've done some research online (mostly regarding taxes and officiating travel mileage deductions) about the difference between independent contractors, and employees, and it's an unbelievably complex issue, requiring one to be an attorney, or a certified public accountant, to get through the paperwork.

I always check off "Individual/Sole Proprietor Or Single-Member LLC" on W-9 forms, but don't really know what that means, or if it has anything to do with independent contractor status or employee status.

Perhaps tax status has absolutely nothing do with independent contractor status or employee status?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Q...=0&w=300&h=300

Assigners (including associations that assign) are what throw the IC/EE conundrum into a loop.

If assigners merely acted as agents for officials, helping them solicit business, it would not be such an issue. But assigners (even if they act like they don't) work for the schools, not the officials, so they function much more as bosses than agents due to the nature of their jobs. Many, unfortunately, act more as dictators, thus you get these ridiculous "non-compete agreements" and other restrictions on officials that clearly violate IC laws.

Schools directly hiring officials and the lack of the middleman is the most obvious scenario where we are clearly ICs. Not saying that this would be a good thing by any means (though there are areas that operate this way); merely pointing out the argument.

Fun fact: There are three types of individuals who can represent you before the IRS: Attorneys, CPAs, and Enrolled Agents. Hell is an Enrolled Agent? Well, a CPA has 4 tests and one of them touches on taxes. EA's take 3 tests and 2 of them are on only taxes (3rd is IRS representative regulations). Main difference? EA's are cheaper than the first two.

Anyway, I got one test left for the EA designation. So I'm not an expert, but I've spent the past 2 months reading the tax code 3-5 hours a day.

Tax status & employee status are linked. To make it simple: That 1099 you get goes to your Schedule C, and you get double tapped on it; first time as "business income" and then again as "personal income".

LLC & S-Corps get to avoid that, so those who are members/shareholders get taxed only once for that income. It's why on a lot of camp forms you'll see pay to "Zebra Refs, LLC" instead of "Bobby Joe". Employees also get to avoid that, as the employer pays half their share of FICA taxes. As an employee you also only pay "personal income" tax on that, not the additional "business income".

Now here's the fun part: An individual is usually an independent contractor if the employer, the person for whom the individual performs the services, has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.

What really matters is the right to control how you work, not the results. What is the result of our work? A fair game? Equity? Ref every call properly? But tell me, we are told how to do our jobs are we not?

How many of us are getting fired if we show up and walk up and down the court? How many of us are getting phone calls if we use unapproved mechanics? Didn't get to the reporting area before you reported the call? Didn't show up 90 minutes before game time? Make the wrong call? You weigh too much?

The schools might not employ us, but the assignors sure do. In VA associations get contracts, not refs. Then the association "works" the game. How you can be an IC yet work for an association that tells you how to ref, where to work, and what time you work flies in the face of reason.

Why not make us employees? That's easy: Insurance, taxes, per diem, pay roll, benefits. It's a headache that no one wants to deal with.

Player989random Is What You Call An Expert ...
 

Thanks Player989random. It's nice to have an expert like you on the Forum.

I pay Social Security (FICA) tax (the full 15.3%) on my officiating income in April of every year.

Doesn't everybody on the Forum do this?

If I don't pay this won't I have to share a prison cell with the partners of my accounting firm, Dewey, Cheatem & Howe?

Double Dipping ???
 

That's news to me.

If that's true, why is my local board paying our assignment commissioner $31,920.00 (from our hard earned dues) to assign high school and middle school games in 2019-20?

Are you saying that he's also getting paid by the schools?

I don't think so.

A CPA license is not a "tax license" like many people think. They have to know much more than taxes because their certification covers way more.

I know some external auditors. They get annoyed when people ask them about taxes.

Dust In The Wind (Kansas, 1977) ...
 

Several years ago our Connecticut State IAABO Board told that we couldn't work AAU games unless the AAU tournament administrators negotiated payment with our Connecticut State IAABO Board and that we could only work with other IAABO certified officials in such games.

That memorandum lasted just a few weeks and then disappeared (as if it never existed, with no explanation) like dust in the wind after a few guys made a few phone calls to the Connecticut State Department of Labor.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.U...=0&w=202&h=175

I work for my schools and assign conference games for 24 schools. The schools pay for assigning.

Not everything is as in your little corner of.......you know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Do As The Romans Do ...
 

Of course I know, when in Rome (or SC (South Carolina?)) ...

I, like Rich, was just pointing out the differences.

Wow. Seven dots, that's a lot of dots, just like our Tweeter In Chief (with apologies to Stephen Colbert). Did the post really need seven dots? Isn't that wasting dots, you know, dots don't grow on trees ?

It's good to feel appreciated. :D

Do you get paid directly to yourself or via "Mac Daddy's Rules & Reffing LLC"? You can't avoid truly avoid FICA, but you can decrease how much you pay, legally. Make an S-Corp, pay a "reasonable salary" and take the rest as a dividend. Dividends don't pay FICA.

Yup, CPAs are a lot more than tax preps. I've also worked with CPA's who use this ignorance so people will pay them $150/hour to plug information into TurboTax. I highly recommend everyone here talks to a tax professional for tax planning, not filing. Unless you straight-up didn't file.

Free Advice Is Totally Worth The Price One Pays For It ...
 

Thanks for the free advice (I assume that I won't get a bill) but it seems like a lot of work for only a little payoff. By the time I declare my business expenses for dues, fees, fines, insurance, uniforms, shoes, equipment, laundry, and travel mileage, officiating seems more like a hobby rather than a business.

Now that I'm retired from my day job (fans have been telling me not to do that for years), I'm legally declaring my round trip mileage for all my assignments. I couldn't do this when I was traveling to assignments from my day job that I commuted to every day, right?

Of course, I did know a "guy" at work who told our boss that in case the IRS called, he should tell them that I, I mean he, would drive home before all of my, I mean his, assignments to "get my, I mean his, bag" even if the assignment was in the same town where I, I mean he, worked. Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod.

I highly doubt CPA firms are using TurboTax.

As long as tax law is complicated, the IRS is intimidating, and clients are willing to pay to have a CPA sign their 1040, I don't really see the issue.

I love my CPA. For tax guidance and preparing my returns. Well worth the fee to me.

You can't write-off miles that you do from home to the work site. That's commuting. BUT, you can write them off if you handle a majority of administrative duties at home. Or have a home office.

You're right though. I want to say the math to do the S-Corp thing only makes sense once you hit $75k. That number was pre-TCJA, so who knows now.

https://proconnect.intuit.com/

Same company that makes TurboTax. It's what we use. It's pretty much TurboTax without the cute graphics. So long as your tax situation is simple (W-2 income only, no estates, business that makes under $250k and/or no inventory) you don't really need a tax professional.

Not to say you should stop seeing your guy. If he's good, hell he's good. But behind the green curtain it's just some old guy pressing buttons.

Sure, if you say so.

Again, a lot of people with straightforward tax situations see the value in having a CPA sign their 1040. Others just hate doing their taxes and are willing to pay someone to take it off their hands. If you're seeking tax advice from a CPA chances are preparing your return is over your head even if it's straightforward. There are a lot of clients that probably use EAs for "easy" returns, as well.

I'd use a CPA over H&R Block anyday. No offense to you, to each his own.

In Virginia the commissioners get paid by the school(s), usually a lump sum up front based on the number of games to be assign or a negotiated fee, and also get paid by the officials with an 8-10% commissioner's fee out of our game checks.

I got into a debate with our treasurer this past season because our 1099's are reflecting the full game fees, not the game fees minus 8 to 10%. I told him the 8-10% commissioner's fee needs to reflect as income for the commissioner and whoever else gets paid from those fees. Officials at no time see that 8-10% portion of our game check, so it should not reflect as our income. We get paid by the association, so that 8-10% is only touching the association's hands.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No offense taken. That mentality is how I make money.

It's the same in Western VA and my basketball association as well. I heard that the local rival one pays it's officials the actual amount that is reflected in Arbiter. For soccer and baseball it's different; the amount you see on Arbiter is what you get paid.

The only other one that does it via 11% fee out of your check is the football group. I asked them about that, and next thing you know, I got kicked out.

Death and Taxes ...
 

Back in my youth, when I was only teaching for a living, wasn't officiating, didn't own a house with a mortgage paying interest on a loan (I rented an apartment), and didn't own any stocks, bonds, mutual funds, dividends, etc. (all I had was a bank account), I did my own taxes.

Those days are long gone.

Underestimating Complexity ???
 

I'm retired, I don't make a daily commute back and forth to a "day job" any more.

During basketball season, three, or four, days a week, I leave home and drive to a basketball assignment, work the game, and drive back home after the game. That round trip mileage has to be deductible, as do the trips I take back and fourth to our board board meetings several times during the basketball season.

Right?

Back in an earlier post I was referring to the complex situation of an official making his normal commute to his "day job", and then traveling to a basketball assignment from his "day job" (not back home first), and then driving back home after the game. It was always my understanding that many officials might be underestimating the complex nature of that tax situation.

Right?

Alright, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here:

You work at X and live at H. You have a game at Z. Going from H to Z or from X to Z, you can deduct those miles. That isn't commuting, that's going to the temporary work station (which is the school, your meeting, camp/tryout, etc.). Doesn't matter if you're retired, a student, or a CEO.

Going from Z to H is the problem. Is going home work-related? What do you do at home that could be considered a valid business reason? If you can't give the tax man a solid answer (like I have a home office), it's a no, and you can't deduct the round-trip miles.

Now, is he really going to come for your log book and demand you open that up and explain everything? Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt he'll care for what you write-off, but no, round trip usually isn't deductible. That's why you have to play the game and make a BS company or an LLC and file extra paperwork.

Orange Is The New Black ...
 

Wow. I'm retired so there is no X. It's just H to Z and Z to H. I never realized that I can't deduct business expenses for Z to H mileage. I present my officiating mileage to my tax accountant as "round trip mileage" and he allows it. Always has.

This worries me because I don't look good in orange.

I visit a State Correctional Institution several times every month as part of my church's Prison Ministry (Matthew 25:36). The corrections officers let me out after every visit. I don't think I can handle staying there overnight.

If it makes you feel better, if we audited every American, we'd likely get billions of dollars in taxes back. When they changed the tax laws in the 80s, they said over 7 million children disappeared because they required folks to put down their dependent's SSNs instead of just trusting them to be honest.

But hey man, you're a fugitive now. A real genuine bad-ass.

A Quinn Martin Production ...
 

I swear that it wasn't me.

It was the one armed man.

Anyone (besides me) remember what this thread was originally about? Starting a thread is like having kids--once they grow up, you have little say in their lives!

It was about the PIAA deciding to stop providing insurance (liability, excess medical, etc.) to game officials, without decreasing the dues officials would be required to pay. There was some discussion of insurance alternatives, including NASO and NFHS insurance. IAABO also provides insurance to basketball officials, if one is a member (individual or through a board, some PIAA basketball associations are also IAABO boards (Board 65 is the Philadelphia Suburban Association, Board 70 is the Central Pennsylvania Basketball Officials Association, etc.)).

It was a rhetorical question. Perhaps I should have appended a smilie.

Going from Z to H should be just fine as long as it's truly a temporary job location, not a 2nd job location, and you are employed with a regular job location outside the home. Home-based workers and retirees are out of luck, but for most of us Z to H is ok. I'm sure you've seen this chart before, right out of Pub 463.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/xml_bc/11081l02.gif

Your treasurer was right. You get 1099'd on the gross amount and the assigning fee is an expense you should claim on your schedule C, even if you never actually see the cash.

I previously thought the same as you until I researched it.

These may not be conclusive, but may shed some light on the topic:

• https://ttlc.intuit.com/community/ta...1099/00/356157
  
• https://www.eitcoutreach.org/ridesha...-count-income/

The Commissioner's 1099 should reflect the amount received from those assigning fees.

Yeah, but I'm keep it conservative to people when I give advice. Nothing worse than having someone come after you because "You said it was fine!". Now, if you listen to some guy on the internet. :)

Also, that workstation has to be outside "the metropolitan area". How many of us really leave the "metro area" for HS reffing? Don't get me wrong, I've gone 40-50 miles for some games, but the DC Metro area is almost from Winchester to Fredericksburg (60 mile radius). That being said, I highly doubt the IRS is going to check your log book.

Good advice, esp when you have to do it for real and not just on the internet!

However, the outside the metro area is only for home-based workers and others who don't have a regular place of business, as I read the regulation. For the majority of us with a regular job location outside the home, H to Z would still be deductible even inside our metro area.