Quote:You mentioned a very clear example where the IRS determined the classification of a 1099 contractor inappropriate and reclassified the worker as an employee.


Then senator talked about giving employees a 1099. You commented how easy that made things. His concept of giving an "employee" a 1099 is a contradiction of the legal relationships of independent contractor vs. Employee. It was also a moral contradiction to praise him and condemn the hotel.


His example is how the system should work in a free market system. I'm not throwing stones. Just pointing out how one sentence can cause an accounting debate.


Appearantly we all agree that doing business the way the IRS would want you to is cumbersome and to be avoided whenever possible. When I get more time ill talk about protectionist licensing etc.

 

By "senator" you mean, Senior Fantastico, right?

 

I think there were basically 2 different conversations going on at the same time.  I'm not sure that because I was discussing 2 different topics means anything was contradictory...

 

I'd suggest going back and re-reading the thread...  The discussion of sub contractors in the construction industry in New Mexico and the discussion of employees and the high cost of calculating and accounting for income tax withholding (or specifically the ease and relative low cost of such administrative costs) are 2 separate and non-contradictory discussions.

 

As for the IRS and the function of that institution, it's pretty much protected by the Constitution.  I believe its within Article 1, which states that the government has the right and duty to impose taxes to provide for the defense and general welfare of the country...  

 

So this concept of abolishing the IRS is just ridiculous.

---