Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Is Worker Misclassification Tax Fraud? Probably Not.

Written on .

One of most common types of wage-hour litigation is the "misclassification lawsuit," triggered by an employer's misclassification of a worker as an "independent contractor" ("I.C.") rather than as an "employee." One urban myth among employers is believing that the choice of whether a person is an "I.C." or an "employee" is a subjective issue decided solely by the employer. This is absolutely false, and errors can be expensive.

Some employers deliberately misclassify workers as "I.C.s" because they think they can avoid paying employment taxes (and tax withholding), workers' compensation premiums, overtime wages, and/or employee benefits, such as health insurance. This type of misclassification can lead to lawsuits as workers who should have been classified as "employees" sue to recover wages and benefits.

There are several legal tests, under different statutes, for determining if someone is an "employee" or an "I.C.". Most of them involve the degree of control the employer exercises over the work to be done. For example, the person you hire to paint your house who arrives with his own buckets and ladders is likely a bona fide independent contractor: but if the contractor hires a painter and tells him when, where, and how to paint, the contractor probably has an employee.

An interesting twist is to add a claim for tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7434. This statute allows individuals who are victims of tax fraud to sue the individual (or company), that filed a fraudulent tax return. The argument in a misclassification lawsuit is that, by filing an IRS Form 1099 (reporting income paid to an independent contractor), the company committed fraud because such income should have been reported via a Form W-2 (the proper form for reporting income paid to an employee). The statute allows an aggrieved person to recover the greater of $5,000 per fraudulent return or their actual damages.

It's a nifty idea, but so far, it's not working. The very few written court opinions to date have ruled that 26 U.S.C. § 7434 does not apply to simple misclassification situations. Rather, the district courts are leaning toward an interpretation of the statute that requires actual fraudulent intent, such as deliberately under-reporting income. Companies that, intentionally or inadvertently, misclassify workers as "I.C.s" shouldn't get too excited by these rulings, so long as the worker's income is correctly reported via Form 1099. The workers can still recover under a wide variety of statutes (especially the Fair Labor Standards Act), and misclassification can trigger other tax liabilities, but so far no court has handed down penalties under this statute for errors arising from misclassification.

Take-home point: Properly classifying workers as "employees" or "independent contractors" is an objective analysis, not a simple choice to be made by the employer. Misclassifying a worker (whether deliberately or inadvertently) will expose the employer to potential liability for back wages, liquidated damages, lost employee benefits, unpaid taxes and employment-related contributions, and/or plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs, but is very unlikely to lead to penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 7434.

Chris Adams is a paralegal and a member of the Wage and Hour Practice Group at Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine, P.C.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

From the historic bronze doors at Los Angeles City Hall.

NLRB to Seek Rescission of past Discipline Imposed under Overbroad Employer Work Rules

In a memo issued during April, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo announced that when the NLRB seeks to rescind overbroad and thus ill...
dashcam

Do Drive Cam Cameras inside Trucks Violate Employee Rights?

As a safety measure, many employers with driver employees have installed cameras inside the cab to alert drivers and monitor their safe d...
amazon app, mobile phone, table, indoors

Amazon Considers Risk When Investigating Employee Misconduct

In a legal conference in March, Amazon Corporate Counsel Lee Langston stated that aggressive enforcement actions of the NLRB have impacte...
Person signing a contract

Latest NLRB Attack Goes beyond Non-Compete Agreements to Reach Outside Employment

An interesting article concludes that the NLRB is invalidating employer rules "one clause at a time."  On January 31, 2024, the NLRB's Di...
black lives matter painted on a wall

NLRB Board Addresses BLM Insignia at Work

In a February 21, 2024 ruling, the NLRB reversed an administrative law judge's conclusion that writing "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) on apro...
indoors, workplace

Walk-Around Rule Allowing Union Reps to Accompany Safety Inspectors to Go into Effect

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released its "Walk-Around Rule" in April, to take effect on May 31, 2024.  ...