3 ms·
It's not an arbitrary choice whether to treat a particular interaction as an employee or as a contractor - the nuances are a bit tricky, but in general it's pro
by PeterisP 4y ago
It's not an arbitrary choice whether to treat a particular interaction as an employee or as a contractor - the nuances are a bit tricky, but in general it's prohibited to treat it as contracting if it isn't actual contracting but if someone is working what we'd call a standard full time job at a company.
The obvious way (mentioned elsewhere here) is that you can reasonably provide services as a business - non-anonymously, non-pseudonymously, disclosing the exact legal identity of your shell company instead of your personal details.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago> It's not an arbitrary choice whether to treat a particular interaction as an employee or as a contractor - the nuances are a bit tricky, but in general it's prohibited to treat it as contracting if it isn't actual contracting but if someone is working what we'd call a standard full time job at a company. Yea, but I suspect these are all going to be remote jobs with people in other countries at which point they're all contractors. It's only people in the same country as the company since generally the thing they're trying to avoid is tax evasion and they don't care if they can't tax you.
- cma 4y agoJust to underline non-anonymously: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/04/the-end-of-the-anonymous-shell-company-in-the-united-states https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/04/the-end-of-the-an... Owners can no longer hide their identity with a shell company after a recent law.