Re: IC v. Employee question
From: 14tonks (mail.2.14tonks_at_recursor.net)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: JulieW8: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Previous message: Margie: "Re: So did you watch Wife Swap?"
- In reply to: Jeannie Wilson: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Next in thread: CLJ1219: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: CLJ1219: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: JulieW8: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:22:52 -0500
I don't think you could require they have a DBA name. You certainly could
insist they demonstrate that they were actually in business as a contractor
by insisting they have either a business license, DBA name, registered
corporation, and/or separate business tax ID number. It's perfectly
legitimate to ask any prospective subcontractor to provide you with proof
they are a real contractor.
-- Sheila To reply to me, add the prefix real. to my address. "Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message news:Xns95A67E69F626Cjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136... > clj1219@aol.com78946321 (CLJ1219) wrote here for all to > seenews:20041119123031.06675.00000756@mb-m15.aol.com: > > > Actually, Rae, to make sure all your subs have business licenses, DBAs > > or corporations or some of the other ways to ensure they are true ICs > > would work. > > Wouldn't that be exhibiting control over them, though, requiring that they > handle "their business" in the way you prefer?
- Next message: JulieW8: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Previous message: Margie: "Re: So did you watch Wife Swap?"
- In reply to: Jeannie Wilson: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Next in thread: CLJ1219: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: CLJ1219: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: JulieW8: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|