Discussion:Hairdressser booth rental to qualify as independent contractor
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Hairdressser booth rental to qualify as independent contractor
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Hairdressser booth rental to qualify as independent contractor
| 14 December 2010 | |
| From what I've been able to find, one of the main reasons the IRS will typically consider a hairdresser an employee is when their booth is paid with a percentage of the fees the hairdresser charges their clients. There are other factors too in this determination but this seems to be the main reason. So, if a hair salon met all the other requirements and set it up so that the hairdresser paid rent for their booth based on the hours they actually used the booth, would I be correct in assuming that the IRS would consider those hairdressers as being independent contractors? In turn, the hairdresser would issue the hair salon a 1099 for the rent paid. Or would the hairdresser still be considered as an employee since it is based on the number of our that person worked? I've read through http://www.unclefed.com/SurviveIRS/MSSP/beauty.pdf but I'm still not clear. | |
| 14 December 2010 | |
| Discussion:Hair Salon Chair Rental | |
| 15 December 2010 | |
| When dealing with friseurs, coiffeuse and trichologists get a signed independent contractor agreement. Hmmm, I guess that would be a chair rental agreement. Well, you know what I mean.
Make sure the friseur dresses differently and acts differently from the owner. No uniforms becuase it make them look like they are from the same gang. Business cards should not have the name of the shop. A good coiffeuse goes by one name only. Like: Prince, or Michael, or Cher or Elvis. Just the name and number on the business card. The owner cannot tell the IC when to come to work, how many hours to work or any of that. | |
| 15 December 2010 | |
| Stev, you are confused. The main factor the IRS uses when distinguishing between employee vs independent contractor is the degree of control that the shop has over the hairdresser.
Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion on this matter, several years ago. He strongly emphasised "control" as the key factor. If the shop pays the hairdresser .... then the issue is employee vs independent contractor. If the hairdresser pays the shop ... then it is rent (and thus no "employee vs independent contractor" issue exists). In an agreement where the shop pays the hairdresser - then the more control that the shop has over the hairdresser, then the "more" the factor scale tilts toward the hairdresser being an employee of the shop ...rather than the shop contracting with the hairdresser as an independent contractor. Think about it, if the shop calls a plumber to fix a broken water pipe at the salon ... do you think the salon owner is going to tell the plumber how $much to charge to fix the pipe, what to wear while he is fixing the pipe, how to fix the pipe, what kind of supplies to use to repair the pipe, or if the plumber is allowed to bring an assstant to help with the repair, etc...? All those demands are example of control, that he salon might have over the plumber if the plumber were the salon's employee. The plumber is an independent contractor hired by the salon (not an emplopyee of the salon). | |
