employer – Cooper Mann Consulting

December 29, 2015

Report Right or It’ll Cost You (double)

Reporting requirements for business just keep growing, and so do the penalties for doing it wrong. New this year and just in time for the annual reporting season (makes it sound almost fun, huh?) are new forms to file and an increase in penalties for not making an effort to get the information correct and into the hands of the proper recipient. Failure to file by the due date can cost businesses $250 per item, up to $3,000,000 in penalties ($1,000,000 for small businesses). Add to that the warning about intentionally not filing or having an “intentional disregard of the requirements to furnish a correct payee statement”, which carries a penalty of at least $500 per payee statement and has no maximum penalty. Clearly, the cost of making sure the information is correct and filed in a timely manner is far less than the cost of not getting it done – or done right.

Growing problems around wage and revenue reporting have caused the IRS to pursue a variety of measures over the years to try to improve information reporting. The Affordable Care Act has also had quite an impact on wage and benefit reporting, increasing reporting requirements substantially. From the introduction of health plan reporting on W2s to the new mandatory forms 1095-C and 1094-C (for applicable large employers), businesses of all sizes are feeling the pressure.

February 2016 marks the date when employers and healthcare providers are required to file those shiny new IRS information returns regarding employer-provided healthcare coverage, providing a copy of the return to each employee much like a W2. The information would then enable the IRS to enforce rules established under the Affordable Care Act by revealing whether an individual might be eligible for a premium tax credit, or if an employer may be subject to non-compliance penalties. Penalties for failing to comply essentially double in 2016. And the IRS suggests that a “good faith effort” standard will be applied to information reporting, offering no relief for employers that fail to make the effort to file timely and correctly.

It wasn’t very long ago that 1099 filing requirements expanded substantially, forcing businesses to get far more detailed in their production of information to the IRS and to payment recipients. While this filing requirement impacted businesses both large and small, most lived through it (with the help of their trusted accounting professional!) and were able to comply. That effort informed the IRS on a wide variety of business payments and expenses not previously tracked, in particular payments made for services and non-employee compensation.

The increasing scrutiny of wage and earning information may also help in efforts to curtail tax refund fraud. Identity thieves use stolen (or borrowed) social security numbers to file false tax returns early in the year. Unfortunately, with the IRS motto of “pay first, prove later” the cross checking won’t likely be done until after the refund check has been sent. Once the task is performed, however, the taxpayer could end up getting a letter from the IRS stating that more than one tax return was filed using the social security number, they owe for a tax year for which they did not file a return, or the IRS indicates that wages were reported from an employer the taxpayer doesn’t know.

The IRS expects tax refund fraud to top $21 billion by 2016, which is an increase of 223% from 2013 numbers. Tax refund fraud costs every taxpayer. No wonder the IRS is getting tougher with the penalties for not filing information returns accurately or on time.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?

Following is the text from the IRS, which outlines the “Increase in Penalties for Failure to File Correct Information Returns and to Provide Correct Payee Statements — 31-JUL-2015

L. 114-27, section 806, increased penalties for failure to file correct information returns and provide correct payee statements for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2015.

Penalties are discussed in Section O in the General Instructions for Certain Information Returns. The penalties in the bulleted list under “Failure To File Correct Information Returns by the Due Date (Section 6721)” are revised as follows.

$50 per information return if you correctly file within 30 days (by March 30 if the due date is February 28); maximum penalty $500,000 per year ($175,000 for small businesses).
$100 per information return if you correctly file more than 30 days after the due date but by August 1; maximum penalty $1,500,000 per year ($500,000 for small businesses).
$250 per information return if you file after August 1 or you do not file required information returns; maximum penalty $3,000,000 per year ($1,000,000 for small businesses).

December 2, 2015February 3, 2016

Franchise FUD: Browning-Ferris Industries, the NLRB, and Joint-Employer Status

iconic An August decision by the NLRB is likely to have a broad impact in the coming years, forcing a great deal of change in how many businesses do business. While the issue may be under the radar for some business owners, those in the franchise industry are paying very close attention – which makes sense because the ruling could easily be construed as the beginning of the end for the franchise business model. At stake are the definition of “employer” and the determination of who is really responsible for the workers.

The issue stems from a 3-2 decision by the NLRB on a case involving Browning-Ferris Industries of California. Browning-Ferris Industries is a waste management company that contracted with another company – Leadpoint – to supply employees to perform a variety of work functions. Under the NLRB ruling, it was determined that Browning-Ferris was a joint employer with Leadpoint. What is interesting in this case (and where the FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – come in) is that “indirect control” of the employees became the primary factor determining whether a joint employer relationship existed under the National Labor Relations Act. Going against years of precedent, the board ruled that Browning-Ferris and Leadpoint were jointly employing the workers.

In the decision, the Board applies long-established principles to find that two or more entities are joint employers of a single workforce if (1) they are both employers within the meaning of the common law; and (2) they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating whether an employer possesses sufficient control over employees to qualify as a joint employer, the Board will – among other factors — consider whether an employer has exercised control over terms and conditions of employment indirectly through an intermediary, or whether it has reserved the authority to do so.

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-browning-ferris-industries

There are many who believe Browning-Ferris is a precursor to the pending proceeding against McDonald’s Corp. in which the NLRB general counsel charges McDonald’s Corp as a joint employer of its franchisees’ employees. Possibly in response to outcries of wage inequality and fast-food worker strikes to force an increase in the minimum wage, the NLRB seems to be adjusting its definitions in favor of the movement and may inadvertently destroy the foundations of the franchise business model according to some.

Clearly the franchise business model is in the crosshairs. In an article published on Law360 by David J. Kaufmann, Breton H. Permesly and Dale A. Cohen, the authors cite from the June amicus brief on the Browning-Ferris proceeding, in which NLRB General Counsel Richard F. Griffin Jr “directly addressed and attacked franchising, claiming that it was merely an “outsourcing arrangement” and insisting that franchisors are the joint employers of their franchisees’ employees because franchisors can exert significant control over the day-to-day operations of their franchisees”. No ambiguity there.

There have always been questions when workers are classified as contractors, forcing regulatory agencies to delve into the details of the relationship to determine whether or not independence actually exists. But this decision changes things in a big way. From Unions gaining more strength in forcing contracting organizations to participate in bargaining processes, to franchise businesses electing to run only company-owned locations to minimize exposure and risk, there is likely to be some troubling times for businesses large and small in the coming months and years as the new definitions take hold.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?

here’s a shortlink to this article http://wp.me/p2hGOJ-Om

November 18, 2014December 2, 2014

Courier or Messenger as Contractor or Employee? Compliance with Department of Labor

When it comes to dealing with the Department of Labor, there is only one prudent approach: keep meticulous records and self-audit regularly. It’s not that the DOL is a particularly frightening group, but increasingly public conflicts suggesting wage theft and avoidance of employer responsibilities continue to shine a bright light on the gravely imperative nature of keeping the right records and operating within the proper constraints. It is the DOL’s persistence in the auditing of independent contractor relationships which has put a tremendous amount of pressure on businesses which operate with primarily contracted workers.

The issue is not exclusive to any particular industry, but it seems that there are numerous rich targets in the area of logistics, as recent decisions impacting FedEx and UPS reflect. Described in an MSNBC article quoting David Weil’s book “The Fissured Workplace”, the decisions supporting the DOL in the 9th Circuit “further undermine the “devolution of the proletariat” — corporate America’s ongoing effort to shed front-line, often low-wage employees through independent contracting, subcontracting, and franchising arrangements”. The two federal appellate decisions disputed FedEx’s contention that its drivers in California and Oregon were properly classified as independent contractors. While there are many situations where the argument supports fair treatment for workers who operate more as employees than contracted workers, there is an equally substantial base of business where the performers are contracted and independent and should remain free to operate as such.

One of the industries directly in the crosshairs of the Wage and Hour Division of DOL is the courier and messenger industry. Couriers and messengers pick up and deliver messages, documents, packages, and other items – generally between offices or departments within a business, or directly to other businesses or individuals – and do this while traveling by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, public transportation or private vehicle. The Bureau of Labor statistics in 2012 indicated that almost 25% of those classified as couriers and messengers were local messengers and delivery providers, and that the highest concentration of these providers is in New York.

So what’s the deal with DOL versus courier/messenger services and their clients as it relates to the “contractor independence” issue? Well, the initial approach by the DOL is often to consider the hiring authority (the client) as a Professional Employer Organization or simply as an employer. This approach is often forwarded regardless of the provider’s owner/operator status, and may be due to a lack of supporting evidence that the courier was actively soliciting additional business from other sources (which is generally not the problem of the client, but in this case could be). There is a requirement to substantiate not only the client’s position that he is not the employer, but to satisfy recordkeeping for the courier or messenger, as well, proving independence and having the necessary paperwork and proof to support the claim.

In a business where people are frequently on the move, scheduling jobs between pickups and deliveries, there isn’t a lot of time to spend filling out paperwork and getting written agreements. These folks are working even as they’re scheduling more work, and a lot of this activity is done via text or telephone while riding a bicycle. The circumstances of how this industry works makes compliance a particularly difficult task, and the DOL doesn’t have to schedule audits and compliance visits – they can approach a business at any time and request to review records, observe activities, and more.

Given the frequency of such investigations and audits, every business in the industry should be looking for a simple and foolproof solution to keeping the right paperwork and records that will support the business operator claim of independence and protect them from unnecessary cost or litigation. This is where an accounting professional or consultant may provide assistance, identifying the tools and developing the processes to ensure proper reporting and compliance with regulations on both sides of the transaction. Without the proper documentation and evidence supporting the position of the client as well as the provider (the courier/messenger), both parties may end up finding themselves in an unintentional and costly relationship.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?