[Foundation-l] Election rules modification regardingsuffrageissues raised on this list

[Anthony]

That's what I was thinking.  Classifying a worker as a contractor who
holds substantially the same position as another worker you classify
as an employee, is a good way to rack up a hefty bill with the IRS
(for employment taxes, penalties, and interest).

See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> That seems awfully shady to me, and may cause issues with its
>  definition as related to, say, the non-disparagement agreements.
>
>  -Dan
>
>
> On May 1, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>  > Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>  >> In the past, Delphine as well as a few others (mainly technical
>  >> people, names escape me at the moment) were listed as independent
>  >> contractors. I've seen no indication that has actually changed (i.e.
>  >> nobody saying X, a past contractor, has been hired as an actual
>  >> employee).
>  >
>  >
>  > A lot depends on the reason for having an independent contractor.  A
>  > person working outside the United States is better treated as an
>  > independent contractor to avoid complications with United States
>  > employment and taxation laws.  The distinction can be defined
>  > differently for election purposes than for employment law purposes.
>  >
>  > Ec
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>