Thread: Qx technology employee or independent operator???

Any Bell TV technicians out there know what their status is in regards to being an employee or an independent operator with Canada Revenue Agency? If you haven't done one of these: REQUEST FOR A RULING AS TO THE STATUS OF A
WORKER UNDER THE CANADA PENSION PLAN AND/OR
THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, it's time that you did.
Save yourself, be informed! The technicians will get the short end of the stick on this one if you don't wake up

el gallo

It is common to all the Bell TV National Installation Companies.

Guess it's appropriate I chime in - as per my login, this is my world. In fact, a fairly high percentage of what I do is arguing that someone is or is not an employee for tax purposes.

It is true that a lot of relationships between "payors" and "payees" in recent years have been deliberately structured so as to be characterized as "independent contractor" instead of "employer/employee". This is certainly NOT "illegal" or "fraudulent" - contracting parties are allowed to negotiate whatever terms they wish and describe their relationship however they like. The Canada Revenue Agency may not ultimately agree with that characterization, but that does not mean the parties have committed a crime or fraud by so characterizing their relationship.

Furthermore, there has been a growing trend in Canadian tax law whereby the courts have been increasingly deferential to the relationship that arm's length and independent parties intend for themselves, i.e. if a payor and payee enter into a contract that specifically provides their relationship is that of "independent contractors", the courts will not rule otherwise in the absence of substantial evidence that the relationship is more properly categorized as "employer/employee".

So what makes a relationship "employer/employee" for tax purposes? The tests used by Cdn courts (does the payor "control" the payee? does the payor or payee provide the "tools" needed to do the work? does the payee bear any risk of profit or loss from performing the work? is the payee "integral" to the business of the payor?) haven't really changed for decades. However, the application of the tests to specific circumstances is constantly changing, since work performed by workers in 2010 is very different than work performed by workers in 1970s or '80s or '90s. For example, how relevant is the fact a payor provides "tools" in the form of computers and software in an era where a worker can purchase their own for a few hundred dollars?

In terms of whether satellite dish/cable installers are more properly regarded as "employees" or "independent contractors", the answer is (not surprisingly) "it depends". In some cases, installers have enough control over how and where they perform their work that they are probably more properly regarded as contractors, instead of employees. In other cases, the opposite would be true (see, for example:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/200...c20001446.html which involved Shaw cable installers in western Canada).

All of this means that there is always going to be issues over whether someone is an employee or independent contractor for tax purposes, which further means I'll probably have something to do until I'm ready to retire

What exactly are you saying.?

That was very interesting taxtwit, Thank You.

This subject line got me asking a few more questions of people I know at QX and I was startled to be told the following fact;

Contractors, recently had to sign an excusivity contract with QX (And therefore Bell TV), in so much as they cannot do any other work, except what is allocating to them, from Bell TV, through QX..... Now that sounds a little heavy handed and would leave me to consider that any contractor who has indeed signed this contract (which I am told is everyone, otherwise you do not get work issued), would be considered an Employee, of QX.

I also had the oppertunity to chat with 2 Techs today from VuPoint Systems, another National Installation Co, there, the Contractor, is even told of the color the vehicle must be, otherwise they are let go..... Not sure about a contract with these guys, I forgot to ask.

Very interesting taxtwit.
Pinza you are absolutely correct...those are the same conditions of the contract that i signed. I was under the impression we are independent operators.
Now considering WSIB overturned their decision and deemed me a worker/employee, is it still necessary for me to be paying into two million dollar liability insurance? Fifty dollars for DART? Materials?
Is the employer not responsible for this...

what exactly happened?

Wouldn't WSIB's decision make the contract agreement VOID?

Some employers play fast and loose with employment rules. Bottom line is that some people are treated as employees but paid as contractors. This is illegal but many employers get away with it. Depending on the tax status decided upon by Revenue Canada, the "employee" could be on the hook for hundreds of dollars in extra CP payments, might have all his business expenses disallowed but the "contractor" gets no compensation from the employer (say for vehicle expenses or mileage) and will not be eligible for EI without a legal fight. Basically, the "contractor/employee" gets the shaft from both ends and the employer laughs all the way to the bank.

Revenue Canada will typically not do anything against and employer. They deem the taxpayer responsible for all moneys owed due to employment, whether the employer's actions were legal or not.

Wow thats pretty bad that Revenue Canada holds the contractor/employee responsible especially if they know whats going on....