Qx technology employee or independent operator???

  • Thread starter Thread starter el gallo
  • Start date Start date
E

el gallo

Guest
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
 
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/2002/2002tcc20001446/2002tcc20001446.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 ;)
 
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...
 
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....
 
Both of these terms would support an argument installers are really employees of Bell, but the ultimate determination would take into account all circumstances, i.e. what sort of relationship did the parties intend? to what extent does the worker remain in control of his/her own work (decides on his/her own hours, etc.), who provides the tools, etc.


I presume WSIB is some kind of workers compensation board. In my province, a finding that someone is an "employee" for workers compensation purposes does not necessarily mean the person is an "employee" for tax purposes. Depending on the workers compensation legislation, a payor might have to pay WCB premiums for a worker, even if the worker is clearly not an "employee" (in fact, IIRC, the workers compensation legislation in my province doesn't even use the word "employee" with respect to liability to pay WCB premiums).


Unlikely - the fact that a contract contains a clause that says "the parties agree their relationship is "independent contractor" and some tribunal then rules that it isn't would not typically void the contract - the contract would generally remain in force with respect to all other clauses. As to whether a finding that a payee/worker was an "employee" would then require the payor to pick up the costs of things like insurance or "DART" (whatever that is), unless there is something in the contract or some kind of legislation that requires a payor to pay these things on behalf of employees, it would end up being another thing to be negotiated between the parties. Put another way, the fact some tribunal decides a person is actually an employee does not typically allow that person to turn around and demand the payor now pick up the cost of things like insurance, etc.
 
Any Canadian should know whether or not they're considered an independent contractor or an employee. If your employer is paying you cash every week with no statement, it's a safe bet you're not on the books. I would say many workers who do this are aware, and don't care.

A lot of companies do that. It sucks for the worker, but I don't believe it's illegal - can you say "loophole"?

Also, this is not a Bell TV issue.
 
Well taxtwit, you raised the question;



I can answer this based on my very recent conversations. The Contractor has NO control at all, he (The Contractor) is issued work on a daily basis, from Bell TV, directly to the DART (A Hand Held Computer Terminal, that the Contractor MUST rent at a cost of $50 per week, from Bell, failure to rent a DART, means no work), the Contractor, does the work and clears it through the DART, he has very limited contact, from what I am told, with QX, almost all contact is directly with Bell. Scheduling is done in blocks of 8 weeks, I think he told me, again this is all done via QX with Bell.

Contractors are issued Bell ID Cards, they are expected to wear apparel with a Bell logo, purchesed through QX, the vehicles must carry the "Bell Authorized Service Provider", they are issued Bell PEIN #'s, not exactly sure what that stands for. Wouldn't it be funny if the "E" stands for Employee.....lol.
 
Just to throw my 2 cents in for clarification :),



Not 100% true, contractors are encouraged to use the DART system, however its not "manditory", some "old school" techs still use the old telephone based SEAFAS system to review, dispatch & complete jobs on their daily workboard. Most techs use the DART system because of its features (ability to activate recievers, modify orders ect ect without having to call into BELL). It is handy but not manditory in any form.
 
PEIN, That is the bell employee number, my employee number was in the form EX12345, a installer has an employee number in the form U012345, and an internal bell employee has an employee number in the format 1234567.
 
And you can confirm that this is the case at QX.?

I do not believe so, from what I am told. Please confirm, as I am told ALL Contractors MUST use DART.
 
It's not illegal and it's not uniquely Bell.

Companies hire contractors all the time. It's up to contractors to pay their taxes, CPP contributions etc.
 
I'm guessing some pre-DART installers were grandfathered in and can use the former business practice.
 
Well true, not 100% but as almost 95% of the work that QX do is for Bell TV, it's pretty close. I would say that 99% of all installations of Bell TV in certains areas are done by QX, not to mention that they are now responsible as I believe the only contractor doing telus Installations, out West, I think it has some relevance.

It does raise an interesting point though. If a QX (Or another NI Installation Co) Employee or Sub Contractor does 100% or his/her work installing, servicing Bell TV Customers and that Employeee or Sub Contractor, is given a Bell ID, is Scheduled by Bell TV, is responsible for all his/her Bell TV receivers, given all his work directly be Bell TV via the DART (Mentioned in another thread), punished be Bell TV for missing deadlines, etc, would Revenue Canada not consider them as Bell TV Employees.?
 
Not at QX, from what I hear. There are hundreds of other installers, working for local Bell Worlds and Retailers that do not go through either SEFAS or DART.
 
Back
Top