Gig Worker Compliance Challenges Including AB 5

On 10/1/19, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) held a meeting, chaired by State Controller Betty Yee, focused on compliance for gig workers. You can see by the agenda that many topics were covered including background data on understanding the gig economy which for the meeting meant those finding income opportunities from web platforms such as Uber, Postmates, TaskRabbit or hundreds of other similar sites. A video of the meeting is available.

I was honored to participate on a panel on Challenges and Opportunities for Tax Compliance in a Gig Economy. A few points I offered:

• The issue of worker classification is decades old and a big issue that Congress left unaddressed since at least 1978 with "Section 530" of the Revenue Act of 1978. This provision results in some workers being contractors for purposes of the employer's employment taxes, but employees for other purposes including for the worker's tax obligations. It is unfortunate that the multitude of classification schemes among federal and state laws has been allowed to continue for so long. I was hoping that the emergence of the platform work arrangement might finally be a time to look at this broken system, but apparently not yet. Instead we are getting more variations (such as California's AB 5 making many workers employees where other states enacted laws in 2018 clarifying that the platform workers were contractors).  The hearing didn't delve into the possibility of the need for a third category of work arrangement as this was focused on compliance rather than policy changes via legislation.
• We need to provide wider tax education to everyone, such as by including tax education in K-12 curriculum!
• For contractors – change the law to require the hiring person to get a Form W-9 and electronically submit it to IRS and State tax agency. These agencies then check if the person has filed a Schedule C or equivalent form (W-9 requires taxpayer to note type of business entity).  If yes – likely nothing need be done.  If no, email and mail that worker clear information about their tax obligations as a new self-employed entrepreneur. Connect them to tax agency YouTube videos as well. Ideally, this could also be when the federal government deposits $500 into their new retirement account (or perhaps does that once the first return with the Schedule C is filed).
• Lower the Form 1099-K threshold to match Form 1099-MISC ($600). California should not wait for Congress to do this but should instead do what Massachusetts and Vermont already did and drop the threshold to $600. This will help workers and reduce non-filing and the tax gap. It will also mean that more folks renting their property through Airbnb and similar thresholds get a reporting form (and that the government does as well).
• The  IRS has an online withholding calculator for employees that freelancers can also use – but it only works if the taxpayer has wage withholding.  The IRS and FTB should create online calculators to make it easy to compute quarterly estimated tax payments (federal and state) and to pay them online even if a taxpayer doesn't have wage income.
• A gig worker testifying lamented that she would not be able to prove her expenses for mileage on her own but would have to rely on the information provided by Uber and Lyft. That's a great point.  Rather than duplicate the recordkeeping, I suggest that the tax agencies find a way to "certify" the platform's recordkeeping so that the workers can use that information for tax preparation without issue. This should also help the worker understand the information. For example, did the app also track miles  between a drop off and next pick up (it would be helpful for tax recordkeeping if it did).

What about AB 5 enacted in California in September that will cause all employers with California contractors to determine the classification standard under the ABC test. That test starts with the presumption that the worker is an employee. To see if they are not an employee, the ABC test is met requiring meeting each of the following 3 requirements:

  (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

  (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

  (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

If not met, next see if one of the roughly 50 exceptions in AB 5 is met.  If an exception is met, then apply the Borello factors which are basically the common law approach to see if the service recipient has the right to control the manner and means of how the work is performed. If the service recipient can control the manner and means, the worker is an employee; otherwise, is a contractor.

It is important to read the AB 5 exceptions carefully.  I have seen summaries that say accountants are excepted. That is far too simplified. The exception actually reads: "An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant." Like this one, more exceptions will raise interpretive issues such as what does "practicing" mean. In addition parts of the ABC test, particularly "B" will raise interpretive issues. Unfortunately rather than clarifying worker classification by using objective factors, AB 5 leaves us with mostly subjective criteria. 

The results of AB 5 are many but include:

• A worker might be an employee for California law but a contractor for federal. It will be very important for the worker and payor to understand the tax consequences. For example, there is no form equivalent to a Form W-2 that is only issued to a worker and the EDD and FTB (rather than also to the IRS and Social Security Administration); one will need to be created. While this different in classification is not new, it is likely to affect far more workers starting in 2020.
• A worker may continue to be a contractor for both California and federal but more documentation is needed to show that the work arrangement met the ABC test or met an exception.
• The worker is unfortunately out of a job because the payor doesn't want to hire them as an employee. I'm concerned that this may be the case for many part-time workers. The person presenting on October 1 from Postmates noted that many on the platform work just 3 to 5 hours per week and then only for about 3 to 5 months. It's a lot of work to hire these short-term workers as employees.  It is also possible that those hired will not get all benefits, such as offering of health insurance as they might be hired to work less than 30 hours per week with no legal requirement to offer coverage. And virtual workers might find that the employer prefers now to just use workers outside of California.
• And there are other possibilities - let's see what happens.

One additional tax compliance issue I raised involved freelancers that provide services to people outside of California, such as a virtual worker might who is consulting, providing graphic art services or tech services (such as Amazon Mechanical Turks provide). Like all of the tax issues, this is not unique to gig workers but any contractor or any-size business, what is the guidance for sourcing the income to California or other states - and what are the rules in other states. Unfortunately, this can be a complex tax issue not only for individual sole proprietors but also large multistate corporations.

So, lots of issues for compliance, not only for gig workers but other contractors PLUS new complications of the ABC test and its exceptions added by AB 5 effective 1/1/20. All employers with California contractors need to take a look at this legislation to see what changes. While the worker might still be a contractor, the service recipient (payor) will need new documentation to show that the person is a contractor beyond what was needed before 2020.

What do you think?  (btw, I expect to write more on AB 5 later as it is not an example of law changes that help move tax systems into the 21st century to reflect how we live and do business today. There are much better ways to actually get more safety net benefits and beyond to ALL workers.  Also, note that lots of employees don't get many benefits and have very low wages. I think we need to do more as a civil society to address levels of pay and safety net and retirement benefits for EVERYONE and there are ways to accomplish this!

Growing U.S. Gig Workforce Exposes Outdated Tax System

For the past several years I've spent a lot of time on tax issues - federal, state and local, for the gig economy. While at the ABA Tax Section meeting in DC this month, I co-presented on this topic and participated in a podcast on the topic for Bloomberg Tax.  Here is the link.

A few reform suggestions I have:

• Remove the de minimis filing threshold for From 1099-K for third-party settlement organizations such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Paypal. This ensures everyone receiving a payment from someone else through these platforms gets a reporting form. That makes it easier for tax compliance for the gig workers because the document can feed into their tax prep software. Yes, they need to make adjustments to the gross receipts shown on the 1099-K but the platforms can help by making those adjustments (such as for the platform's fees, returns, etc) easy to find on the taxpayer's platform account. Yes, this causes a hassle for non-business folks selling household junk on eBay at a loss, but the IRS should create a schedule for reconciling reporting forms. This will help all taxpayers and the IRS, well beyond the eBay example.
• Congress needs to clarify worker classification rules and ideally, work with states to have just one classification system for all laws. It is crazy that within a state or a federal legal system or between federal and state laws, a worker might be a contractor for one law but an employee for another.
• Laws need to change to make it easier for gig workers to save for retirement and other needs. Tax dollars benefiting employee fringe benefits (including the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance) and retirement benefits can be reduced to free up funds to benefit all workers whether they are employee or contractors.

I hope you enjoy the podcast.

For more, please also see a State Tax Notes article, Failure to Innovate: Tax Compliance and the Gig Economy Workforce, 5/6/19, by Caroline Bruckner and me.

What do you think?

Worker classification questions

Worker classification - whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, is a longstanding and sometimes difficult issue. There are a few different classification schemes applicable to different types of laws (labor, tax, others). Employers tend to favor contractor status when possible to avoid payroll taxes, application of most labor laws (such as overtime), and many state laws governing how someone is paid, sick pay, reporting, and more.

Congress has punted on the issue since at least 1978 when it enacted a temporary provision ("Section 530") which was then made permanent a few years later. I thought the Affordable Care Act and its employer mandate would necessitate providing more clear classification guidance, but that did not happen. The Section 530 rule also prevents the IRS from issuing guidance on worker classification, further complicating matters for all parties.

Well, here are two recent developments highlighting the classification issue from tax perspectives.

First, a Tax Court decision from April 2016, BG Painting, Inc., TC Memo 2016-62. This painting company treated its workers as contractors. One of them filed Form SS-8 with the IRS asking the IRS to review how his employer classified him. When this happens, the IRS will also seek information from the employer. Here, the employer provided it and noted that the worker was the father of BG Painting's officer (!). The IRS determined that the worker was an employee. It sent a letter to BG telling them they should amend or file employment tax returns. BG tried to challenge that result in Tax Court but was denied due to a rule (IRC Section 7436) that prevents the court from ruling on en employment tax matter unless the IRS has made a tax determination. Since the IRS had not assessed any taxes on BG, there was no determination and thus no ability for the Tax Court to rule.

Second, is the labor law dispute involving some drivers from Uber and Lyft. This is a labor law matter, not a tax law matter. I have seen and heard talk that the settlement reached means that the drivers are contractors. The matter is not yet fully settled.  But, this is a labor law matter, not a tax law one. A settlement will not make the drivers contractors for tax purposes. That is a separate matter for the IRS to address.  That will be a private matter (unless one of the employers discloses it).

Many of today's freelancers look like employees in some ways (they don't all set the prices they charge and some can be fired) and contractors in some ways (set hours and many elements of how they work, no restriction on other work they do).  Perhaps a third category is needed.

What do you think?

For more info on worker classification for tax purposes - click here.

Helping new economy clients - June 22 event can help

A theme that came through at Part 1  and  Part 2 of House Small Business Committee hearings in late May on The Sharing Economy: A Taxing Experience for New Entrepreneurs, was that these freelancers need help with their tax planning and compliance. For example, someone who signs up to drive for Uber or Lyft likely doesn't realize that they just became a self-employed entrepreneur with tax obligations that include:

• Keeping records of mileage for driving and other costs involved in being a driver (or freelancer for some other network platform operation).
• Quarterly estimated tax payments for federal and state income tax as well as federal self-employment taxes.
• Reconciling any 1099-MISC or 1099-K received against their records.  And if they don't receive such a form, such as because the payment processor is only required to issue 1099-K and the freelancer did not have more than 200 transactions and over $20,000 of payments, sufficient records to report the income earned.
• Registration at the local level if required, such as for a business license tax. [See for example, San Francisco + 4/15/16 SFGate article.]
• Possibilities of favorable retirement plan options.
• Whether they want to operate as a sole proprietor or perhaps another form, such as a Subchapter S corporation.

And, even before jumping to the conclusion that one is a self-employed entrepreneur filing Schedule C, a determination is needed to be sure they are engaged in the activity for profit (it might instead be a hobby).  Some drivers are just doing it for fun or to derive a little cash flow.  [For more on this issue, see the nine factors of Reg. 1.183-2 and info below.]

Other new economy activities include renting our all or part of your home or other property, such as via Airbnb. That also raises some complex federal, state and local tax considerations.  I also list marijuana operations in the realm of new economy activities and that raises various tax issues as well as ethical ones for the tax adviser.

The 4th Annual IRS-SJSU Small Business Tax Institute on June 22 in Santa Clara aims to help practitioners serving small business clients. We'll have practitioners and IRS folks explaining the rules, offering words of caution and we'll also address some of the ethical issues for practitioners [agenda].

I hope you'll check out the agenda and register - http://www.tax-institute.com.

Sharing economy - need for tax literacy

The House Small Business Committee held a hearing today (May 24) (part 1 of 2) on “The Sharing Economy: A Taxing Experience for New Entrepreneurs.” Part 2 is scheduled for May 26 with National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson speaking.  A focal point of the hearing per the posted testimony was difficulties freelancers face in the sharing economy because they don't fully understand their tax obligations.

The opening statement of committee chair Congressman Steve Chabot noted:

"these entrepreneurs are running smack-dab into the buzz-saw of an outmoded tax code that is not designed to accommodate them. The tax compliance challenges they face have gone largely unacknowledged so far. But as we are hearing from a growing chorus of entrepreneurs, they present new and unnecessary obstacles for our small businesses.

Some of these new entrepreneurs fail to file their taxes altogether, and, when they do, they often pay too much. They don’t know that can deduct certain expenses, or they don’t have the records to back up their deductions, putting them at risk for audit.

Unfortunately, the IRS has not been part of the solution for entrepreneurs in navigating this new sharing economy. Too often, it has been part of the problem.

Our current tax system isn’t working for these new small businesses. In many ways, it is working against them. We can do better, we must do better.

Today, we will explore some of these problems and discuss some potential solutions with this distinguished panel."

But, their challenges are mostly those that small businesses have had for years.  One of the signs that  you are a contractor/self-employed rather than an employee is that you look like you are a business. You keep records, you understand how to make a budget and generate a profit, grow your business, etc.

One simplification that freelancers have is that they don't have to deal with payroll taxes because they don't have employees. They do have to make quarterly estimated taxes for federal and state income taxes and self-employment taxes. They need to keep records of revenue and expenses and reconcile any 1099-MISC and 1099-K received.

So, why isn't the system working for freelancers?  I think the problem is that they entered business in non-traditional ways. That is, they didn't have to do a lot of research and may not have had to invest anything to get started. This is in contrast to starting a restaurant where one likely would take more time to gain some financial skills and knowledge.

Yes, the IRS should send them information once they know they are filing a Schedule C. The IRS can provide the basics of reporting revenue, tracking deductible expenses and reconciling 1099 forms.

A representative from TaskRabbit suggested offering some type of moratorium to allow taxpayers and the IRS to get simpler compliance tools available.

I have been suggesting for years that technology and economic changes would lead to more self-employed entrepreneurs.  I suggested a few times at my university that all students get some instruction, such as part of general education, on entrepreneurship including basic financial and tax literacy, how to start your own business (including that of a consultant or freelancer).  The sharing economy model shows the great likelihood that more individuals will be self-employed. That does bring more tax compliance considerations beyond what an employee faces. We need to provide instruction in high school and college to increase the financial and tax literacy of students. They will need it!

What do you think?

Worker Voice, Classification and Taxes

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/campaign/worker-voice

Last week (10/7/15), the White House and Department of Labor held the White House Summit on Worker Voice. Per the event's website, this event "provided a historic opportunity to bring together a diverse group of leaders – including workers, employers, unions, organizers and other advocates and experts -- to explore ways to ensure that middle-class Americans are sharing in the benefits of the broad-based economic growth that they are helping to create."

President Obama's remarks included this reference about the "sharing economy":

"We’ve got folks who are getting a paycheck driving for Uber or Lyft; people who are cleaning other people’s houses through Handy; offering their skills on TaskRabbit.  And so there’s flexibility and autonomy and opportunity for workers.  And millennials love working their phones much quicker than I can.  (Laughter.)  And all this is promising.  But if the combination of globalization and automation undermines the capacity of the ordinary worker and the ordinary family to be able to support themselves, if employers are able to use these factors to weaken workers’ voices and give them a take-it-or-leave-it deal in which they don't have a chance to ever save for the kind of retirement they're looking for, if we don't refashion the social compact so that workers are able to be rewarded properly for the labor that they put in... -- then we're going to have problems.

"And it’s not just going to be a problem for our politics -- creating resentment and anxiety -- it’s going be a problem for our economy because the history shows that when we do best as an economy it’s when workers have money in their pockets and they're able to buy goods and services.  And they, in turn, create new demand, and create new opportunity, and create the kinds of markets that businesses can then take advantage of.  That's just a fact.

"So we’ve got to make sure that as we continue to move forward, both in this new “on demand” economy and in the traditional economy as a whole, hard work guarantees some security.  And that's what this summit is about -– making sure that, as our economy continues to evolve, working Americans don’t get lost in the shuffle.  They can come together and they can win.

"And we can do this.  We’ve done it before.  There was a time when we shifted from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy.  And as we did, we made some adjustments to our arrangements.  We said, you know what, we’re going to offer everybody a free public education.  We put together the New Deal, put in place systems like Social Security so that people had some basic protections in their golden years.  We put together labor laws that allowed for collective bargaining, and banned child labor, and allowed people to raise their voices and have some leverage in seeking a living wage."

Well, that's a lot!  Much of his remarks also focused on unions and the need for workers to have ways to organize and not be precluded from doing so by employers. Per President Obama: "At a time of shrinking union membership, but a growing number of digital tools for organizing, how do we make sure everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead? "

One of many things the "on demand" economy needs is more clear and consistent rules on worker classification. That wasn't mentioned in the president's remarks. He did list six things that workers need:

1. To earn enough to support a family.
2. To earn "decent benefits."
3. A safe workplace and benefits should you be injured on the job.
4. Family benefits - sick leave, parental leave, affordable child care and predictable work schedules.
5. A way to obtain education and training to grow your skills to move ahead.
6. Freedom to decide if you want to join with others, via a union or other means, to advocate for yourself.

What does all of that mean in the "gig" / "on demand" / freelancing economy? Here are some of my suggestions:

1. Ease of creating your own business that will be respected as an independent business without fear that the government will reclassify you as an employee for any purpose.
2. Simpler retirement plan rules so it is easy to set up an account and contribute to it regularly. Today, there are too many choices.
3. Greater access to free training to help one grow their business.  The SBA and some state agencies offer such classes. Perhaps more is needed.  I think this should be a required course in high school (perhaps 6 weeks).
4. The ability to pay into a "training / emergency" fund tax free.  A percentage of one's income (up to a specified limit) can be paid into this account. Workers can draw upon it should they experience a downturn in work or need to take time off for training or family needs). Perhaps they could apply for a partial match from a government account based on need.

What do you think?

Uber, Lyft and others - worker classification in the 21st Century

I was surprised by the broad press coverage that a California Labor Commission ruling involving one ex-Uber driver (Berwick) received this past week (USA Today, 6/19/15; Los Angeles Times, 6/17/15;.New York Times, 6/17/15).  This ruling (6/2/15) found that someone who drove using the Uber app for less than two months was an employee rather than a contractor. As such, under California Labor Code Section 2802, the employer must cover "all necessary expenditures" of the employee in carrying out their duties or obeying the directions of the employer. So, key to this expense reimbursement rule is that the worker must be an employee.

In the California Labor Commission ruling, the driver says she drove 6468 miles in the 49 days she worked and incurred tolls of $256 and a traffic fine of $160.  Finding that she was an employee, the Commission awarded her:

• $3,622.08 mileage (@56 cents per mile)
•    $256.00 tolls
•    $274.12 interest for getting this reimbursement late

She was not awarded reimbursement for the traffic fine as it was not incurred "at the behest of" Uber. The driver also requested compensation for 470.7 hours of work. But she did not present sufficient evidence and there was evidence that she had been paid. Interesting as well, the driver had a corporation and the payments were made to it. She argued that she did not have the information about this although she is an agent of this corporation.  I note this as interesting because some people argue that if the worker has a corporation and payments are made to it, there can be no worker classification issue as the "employer" hired the corporation.  In this case, I assume Uber "hired" the individual because, as described in this ruling, Uber does a DMV and background check on the drivers.  Presumably, this was all done for the driver even though Uber apparently made payments to the driver's corporation. (A different review seems necessary by Uber if it had hired the corporation. For example, would Uber want the corporation to certify that all of its drivers and vehicles were licensed and insured?)

Well, this topic could easily be a book, but let me get back to why I was surprised by the degree of press coverage and a few other general comments.

This ruling involved one driver and a labor commission in one state. In contrast, there seemed to be little press coverage about two decisions from the federal District Court for the Northern District of California in March 2015. These cases were brought by groups of former drivers - one case involved Uber and the other Lyft. The judge denied summary judgment for both the companies and the drivers saying the determination was not clear and needed to go to a jury (so the litigation continues).  In the Lyft case, the judge noted:

"the jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes. The test the California courts have developed over the 20th Century for classifying workers isn't very helpful in addressing this 21st Century problem. Some factors point in one direction, some point in the other, and some are ambiguous. Perhaps Lyft drivers who work more than a certain number of hours should be employees while the others should be independent contractors. Or perhaps Lyft drivers should be considered a new category of worker altogether, requiring a different set of protections. But absent legislative intervention, California's outmoded test for classifying workers will apply in cases like this. And because the test provides nothing remotely close to a clear answer, it will often be for juries to decide."

I think that is a good summary of the problem.  The drivers set their own hours and how many hours they want to work.  That is not typical of most employer-employee relationships. Also, if the companies are really only matchmakers and payment processors, the drivers are performing services for the passengers, not the companies. This point remains in dispute though. In the Lyft case, the judge notes that given statements from Lyft and requirements it places on the driver's including about cleanliness of the cars and no smoking, it is more than an entity that connects service providers and service recipients. Similar statements are made in the Uber case. It seems that both companies have changed their approach from that of the start though when they were describing themselves as providers of rides (see the cases).  I see that on the website to sign up to drive for Uber, you agree to a statement that includes the following: "I understand that Uber is a request tool, not a transportation carrier." [For more on the process and benefits, click here.]

Also, cases have varied over many years regarding taxi cab drivers as to whether they are employees or contractors. In fact, in a press release (6/17/15) in response to the CA Labor Commission ruling, Uber notes that the Commission ruled in the opposite way in 2012. A ruling in April 2015 in Massachusetts found that taxi drivers who leased their cars from cab companies were contractors, not employees (Bernard Sebago & others v Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc. & others; SJC-11757). One advantage the cab companies had in this case (beyond the fact that they leased cars only) was that the rules in Boston regulating drivers and cab companies specified most of the things Uber and Lyft want their drivers to do. For example, Boston law required drivers to be trained by the city, follow rules on personal appearance, how to line up for fares, etc.  I think that if the California Public Utilities Commission or similar agency in other states had these rules for licensed carriers, Uber and Lyft would not need any and it would be easier for them to truly be a matchmaker (I'm not saying they aren't a matchmaker today, I want more facts).

A few more observations:

• These cases involved labor laws, not federal tax laws. The labor laws focus primarily on wage and hour standards and at least in California, also whether the worker is entitled to expense reimbursement.
• The worker classification standards are not identical among all laws even within the same state or within the federal government. Thus, it is possible that a worker is an employee for one law but not another. Generally, the goal is to determine if the employer has the right to control the manner and means of how the worker performs but the relevant factors vary among jurisdictions and laws.
• These laws have not kept pace with workforce and economic realities. As the judge noted in the Lyft case, perhaps a new system is needed. We likely will see more individuals work via a variety of freelancing activities where various companies, such as Uber or TaskRabbit or many others, connect and process payments for workers and those seeking services. (See Wall Street Journal, "One in Three U.S. Workers Is a Freelancer," 9/4/14, and Hall and Krueger, "An Analysis of the Labor Market for  Uber's Driver - Partners in the United States," which states that in its first 18 months, Uber had over 160,000 active drivers in the U.S.)  If we want to be sure these workers have certain safety net provisions, why not modify laws to be sure service recipients pay a fee that is at least some multiple of minimum wage (these workers do need to cover more payroll tax and expenses).  Why not have a new type of unemployment fund that all workers pay into and can benefit from within certain parameters? Why not divorce health insurance and retirement plans from employment? Why not have a worker classification scheme that can easily be figured out and relied upon?
• What if instead of the app provider or matchmaker company, the Bitcoin model were used with a decentralized system using the Blockchain and software to connect worker and service recipient and arrange payment and log the transactions?  There would be no employer other than possibly the service recipients.  I think the reality that this scheme is possible, calls for a new model (see prior bullet).
• Laws likely require updating in various areas. In January 2015, the California DMV said it was studying the issue of whether "ride share operators" needed a commercial license. And, these rules may vary from state to state. The California Public Utilities Commission is also studying how the laws apply to the drivers and the Transportation Network Companies. Take a look at this CPUC website on TNCs. There is a lot of complication here - worker classification under numerous local, state and federal laws is not the only complicating factors in applying old economy laws to new economy ways of doing business.
• Some commentators have said the recent California Labor Commission ruling could have a detrimental effect on Uber (and Lyft and others). IF this conclusion is ever held to be more broadly applicable, it would be costly to these companies for past transgressions. But, going forward, they would certainly reduce the fees the drivers receive if the companies are covering their expenses!

Well, that was a lot, yet there is a much more to discuss. I'll save for another post the classification criteria used in the cases noted above and how they compare to that used by the IRS and federal courts for U.S. tax cases.  And more later on better approaches and how to bring these laws into the 21st century.

What do you think?