This discussion is cross-posted from my other blog, Nonprofit Update. Although the context of my discussion is how this issue applies to charities, the issues are of even more importance to for-profit businesses.
In response to the rapid growth of what is called the “gig economy” or freelancers, the Department of Labor has issued an interpretation which tightens the definition of who is an employee.
I think it would be wise for the finance team and leadership of charities to look at this issue.
While this is aimed at companies like Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, and any other tech company that pays freelancers on an ad hoc job-by-job basis, it clearly applies to traditional businesses. This applies to charities.
It might be wise to think about how your charity is handling the independent contractor issue.
The Wage and Hour Division of DOL issued Administrator’s Interpretation 2015-1 (access to this copy provided by the WSJ.)
The Wall Street Journal explains Employees vs. Independent Contractors: US Weighs In on Debate Over How to Classify Workers.
The WSJ article explains that DOL believes many independent contractors should be moved to employee status. The DOL believes the definition of employee is far broader not only than what many employers believe but is even broader than what many courts have ruled.
A touch of humor before more serious thinking.
5/9 – Reddit – “These auditors are tying things out just for the sake of doing more work. They’d tie their shoelaces together to test the existence of both their feet.” – Humor you will only appreciate if you have audit experience. If you’ve been an auditor, this is superb.
5/4 – Edward Trott at CFO magazine – Exceptions for Private Companies Are Damaging the GAAP Brand – Read the rest of this entry »
Today I listened to the rebroadcast of 2015 Peer Review Update. Check out the class if you have the chance.
Heard several few things that distressed me.
In particular, we CPAs collectively need to improve the quality of the work we are doing in the audit arena.
Consider a few points. This is what I heard from the presentation. I haven’t gone back to source documents to verify the numbers or explanations. This is what I heard and jotted down in my notes while listening to the session.
Disclosure of open tax years is now only required for a nonpublic entity that has material unrecognized tax benefits
Disclosing which fiscal years are open to audit by tax authorities has been required for nonpublic companies for several years. An explicit requirement came into play with Technical Practice Aid 5250.15.
Effective March 2015 that TPA was deleted. The requirement now is based on a comment buried in the Basis for Conclusions of ASU 2009-06, which says disclosure of open tax years is only needed when there are material unrecognized tax benefits.
Impact of TPA 5250.15
That requirement has produced a standard comment on all nonpublic entity financial statements that looks something like this:
The entity files income tax returns with the U. S. and (state) governments. With few exceptions, the entity is no longer subject to U.S. federal and state income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 20×1.
The AICPA has deleted TPA 5250.15. That type of comment will not be required unless the entity has material unrecognized tax benefits.
Settlements of private lawsuits are continuing. Also, settlements with CFTC underway for another rate manipulation scheme.
6/18 – Wall Street Journal – Banks’ Civil Forex Settlements Near $2 Billion/ Barclays, BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs and HSBC recently signed agreements to settle case – The settlements for private litigation over manipulation of foreign exchange rates are moving forward. Article says HSBC has settled up for $285M, Barclays for $375M, Goldman Sachs is in for $129.5M, and an unknown amount for BNP.
By my calculation that brings the total for seven banks to Read the rest of this entry »
Just finished watching a 2 hour webcast from CPA Crossings. Gary Zeune interviewed Scott London on what got him into prison on an 14-month sentence for securities law violation.
This interview will be available again on June 18 and June 22. More info here.
The four-hour interview from last June, before Mr. London reported to prison, will be broadcast again on June 15, 25, and 30. More info here.
I heartily recommend the webcast. If you are looking for an ethics course that’s a lot more interesting than the typical “here are the rules” presentation, check out one or both of the above webcasts.
I will have several articles on the interview over the next few days. Will talk about one part of the interview now –