3 ms·

A person who enters an agreement to provide something of value (here, data) for something else of value (here, a small monthly payment, perhaps as gift cards) h

by gojomo 8y ago

A person who enters an agreement to provide something of value (here, data) for something else of value (here, a small monthly payment, perhaps as gift cards) has entered a contract, and is a contractor. (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.)

mynameisvlad 8y ago
> (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.) Source. Now. Because I highly doubt this is accurate. I have never heard of someone having to file a 1099 for purchasing services, of any kind. Hell, half of everyone's time would be spent filing 1099s because as a society we spend far more than 600 dollars with any one company over the course of a year literally all the time.
- gojomo 8y ago
  I forgot that all payments to C-Corps or S-Corps are exempt from 1099 filings, so yes, as long as Netflix remains a C-Corp, there's no need to file. (That's a matter of 1099 tax law, though - it's still a contracted relationship. And so while it is uncommon to think of them as a 'contractor', that's what Netflix is, when delivering a service for payments under the terms of a contract.)
  - xenadu02 8y ago
    I don't know how many people have to keep explaining this to you. "Contractor" is a term of art that has specific meaning with regard to employment and contract law. You're using what is known as a "cute trick". Judges are rarely amused by "cute tricks". Like a Sovereign Citizen believer you can keep claiming to be correct all the way to a loss in court, followed by denied appeal after denied appeal.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      Separate from tax and employment regulation, ‘contractor’ is also plain language meaning “someone under contract”. If these people weren’t paid what they were promised, they could sue for breach-of-contract. There’s no trickery here: that’s the ordinary legal meaning, and it is those who insist on only the far narrower regulatory/tax ‘contractor’ category who are playing semantic tricks. It doesn't matter how many people "explain" falsehoods, like the idea that minors can't enter contracts (even with parental permissiion), or that a person being paid by a company under the terms of a contract is not a 'contractor'. They're wrong despite their multitudes. Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar – who makes similar points as I have, about how compensated panelists are “arguably limited purpose ‘contractors’ providing data solely for the developer’s research purposes “: https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/31/the-odd-reason-apple-killed-facebooks-and-googles-usage-research-apps/ https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/31/the-odd-reason-apple-kill...
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        > Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar Not since 2007 - http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049 http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049 And his CV suggests he only practiced any law at all between 2001 and 2004 - http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf Disingenuous of both him and you to claim he has any authority to speak from a legal point of view on this, really, no?
        gojomo 8y ago
        Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. (And, it's interesting that his resume reports him as active through 2017.) But still, a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant, compared to anonymous commenters who are just insisting by repetition "but that's not a 'contractor'!" Is it your reasoned argument that an individual receiving payment for services rendered to a corporation, under the terms of a mutually-agreed contract, is not a "contractor" in the eyes of the law?

by gojomo 8y ago

mynameisvlad 8y ago

> (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.) Source. Now. Because I highly doubt this is accurate. I have never heard of someone having to file a 1099 for purchasing services, of any kind. Hell, half of everyone's time would be spent filing 1099s because as a society we spend far more than 600 dollars with any one company over the course of a year literally all the time.

gojomo 8y ago
I forgot that all payments to C-Corps or S-Corps are exempt from 1099 filings, so yes, as long as Netflix remains a C-Corp, there's no need to file. (That's a matter of 1099 tax law, though - it's still a contracted relationship. And so while it is uncommon to think of them as a 'contractor', that's what Netflix is, when delivering a service for payments under the terms of a contract.)
- xenadu02 8y ago
  I don't know how many people have to keep explaining this to you. "Contractor" is a term of art that has specific meaning with regard to employment and contract law. You're using what is known as a "cute trick". Judges are rarely amused by "cute tricks". Like a Sovereign Citizen believer you can keep claiming to be correct all the way to a loss in court, followed by denied appeal after denied appeal.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    Separate from tax and employment regulation, ‘contractor’ is also plain language meaning “someone under contract”. If these people weren’t paid what they were promised, they could sue for breach-of-contract. There’s no trickery here: that’s the ordinary legal meaning, and it is those who insist on only the far narrower regulatory/tax ‘contractor’ category who are playing semantic tricks. It doesn't matter how many people "explain" falsehoods, like the idea that minors can't enter contracts (even with parental permissiion), or that a person being paid by a company under the terms of a contract is not a 'contractor'. They're wrong despite their multitudes. Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar – who makes similar points as I have, about how compensated panelists are “arguably limited purpose ‘contractors’ providing data solely for the developer’s research purposes “: https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/31/the-odd-reason-apple-killed-facebooks-and-googles-usage-research-apps/ https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/31/the-odd-reason-apple-kill...
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar Not since 2007 - http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049 http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049 And his CV suggests he only practiced any law at all between 2001 and 2004 - http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf Disingenuous of both him and you to claim he has any authority to speak from a legal point of view on this, really, no?
      - gojomo 8y ago
        Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. (And, it's interesting that his resume reports him as active through 2017.) But still, a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant, compared to anonymous commenters who are just insisting by repetition "but that's not a 'contractor'!" Is it your reasoned argument that an individual receiving payment for services rendered to a corporation, under the terms of a mutually-agreed contract, is not a "contractor" in the eyes of the law?