The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Apr 17, 2014

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


45 Comments

Granville_Bean's picture

parade of horribles

Keith is horrified that: " there are about 24,000 Subways in the U.S. Each of them would need to send a 1099 for royalties, for the advertising trust, and for the supply company at a minimum."

It's funny, I would rather not have to issue 1099s than issue them, but when I see the sky is falling horrors claimed, I feel compelled to respond.  Doesn't Keith's Zor ACH Draft these payments out of the Zees' bank accounts?  That would be pretty normal for franchised restaurants.  Atty. Webster suggests that such transactions would already be exempt.  If not, that is an assignment for the Zor's IT and Accounting Departments.  I don't expect they would have any problem figuring out how to automate this.

The requirement is for a Payor to issue a 1099 to the Payee. The idea that someone would find themselves "appearing before a Grand Jury" (as someone else posted) when one of their customers neglects to send them a 1099 is a ludicrous fantasy. 

Granville_Bean's picture

still so what

jd says: "First, if you are an accrual basis taxpayer, then what you say you earned in revenue from a client will be different than what a 1099 says. 

Same situation if you are a cashbasis taxpayer when your vendor writes you a check on December 31, but you don't receive it until January 3.  You would record it in the year that you received it, so the 1099 that you received will be wrong. "

Have you never gotten or given a 1099? Nothing new here. Oh yeah, and the 1099 that reflects a 12/31 payment is not "wrong". It's just not the same as your cash basis books due to the very obvious and common factor you cited, which is similar to your first scenario of the accrual vs. the cash basis taxpayer.  Again, so what, this already exists, it's not that hard to understand..

And no, I wouldn't be asking a vendor what their tax year is and conform my 1099 to their year.  I'm going to send out a calendar year, not a tax year, 1099 just like I send out calendar year W-2s even if my own tax year is different.

Michael, answer

I think you'd see the same response that you got with it's inclusion in the Health Care act, because I'm not sure if they would actually get as much in revenues as they anticipate.  I'm sure that they would have to have some sort of system in place to determine who got audited.  Plus, tax cheats will still find a way to inflate their expenses in the hopes that they don't get audited (ie. family vacations, cars, etc.) that they run through the company. 

I'm not sure how many people in the industry even knew it was going to be part of the Act, because the first that I read of it was a summary written after the fact by Deloitte & Touche.  As soon as I read it, my boss (big democrat) and I both decided that it would probably get repealed.

 

michael webster's picture

1099 For other Purposes

jd, this is a bit speculative, but if the 1099 requirement was used to pay for some favorite program of the Republicans do you think that we would have seen a different response?  I am afraid for small businesses that the 1099 trick is out of the bag, and some program, possibly the ones mentioned by Granville_Bean, are going to be funded with a new 1099 requirement.

Granville_Bean's picture

okay sooo....

Barr says his objection is: "It is the onerous system of bureaucrats spawned by these schemes that is the problem."

So, if we put in a 1099 requirement but didn't use it for Romney/Obama-Care (let's say we earmarked it for paying down the deficit, or for the military), then in THAT case a 1099 requirement would be okay with you?

Missing the point

Granville, I don't disagree with you that tax cheats should be caught, but I think you are missing a point that the AICPA brought up in the article that Michael linked to in his posting.  It's not just as easy as printing out the 1099s (as I imagine all accounting software has that function), it's the reconciling that you'd have to try and accomplish, so that you wouldn't get audited. 

First, if you are an accrual basis taxpayer, then what you say you earned in revenue from a client will be different than what a 1099 says. 

Same situation if you are a cashbasis taxpayer when your vendor writes you a check on December 31, but you don't receive it until January 3.  You would record it in the year that you received it, so the 1099 that you received will be wrong. 

How about companies that have a tax year that is different than the calendar year.  I'm guessing you'd be in favor then of on the W-9 to ask what the companies tax year is, and then having to file a 1099 to that company within 30 days of their tax year end. 

Granville_Bean's picture

Joe Plumber

Barr says: "Oh, and do I get a Junior G-Man badge out of doing the IRS's work for it?"

No, Joe gets one.  Same as you do for issuing W-2s.  Let's repeal that too, it takes too much paperwork, let the Feds chase each employee individually if they think the employees might not be reporting income, don't make the employer do their work for them. 

If you reported all the income that you got from Joe, but Joe didn't get around to reporting all the income he gave you, so what?  How would YOU get in trouble for that?  In what fantasy world does this involve a grand jury for you?

As Michael Webster pointed out elsewhere, Quickbooks already has a feature to print out the needed 1099s.  So okay, better for me that we don't have to do this, but it was much ado about very little.  Unless that is, you DO want to cover for tax cheats.

Romneycare

It is the onerous system of bureaucrats spawned by these schemes that is the problem.

Um...what?!

"But, you confirm what I thought - you are interested in getting rid of the new Health Care law. "

I did nothing of the sort.  Michael, you really need to stop attacking straw men.  They don't exist and aren't out to get you.

 

Well, maybe the Canadian ones are.  ;-)

What's the 1099 problem?

Maybe Joe is lax with his paperwork, and he doesn't.  The govt says it needs and wants the info,so you get an audit and a ticket to a grand jury for doing nothing wrong?

If this doesn't happen when people cheat the system, why bother requiring it? 

Let's leave to the side for a moment that maybe Joe isn't the kinda guy you want having your tax ID #.

Oh, and do I get a Junior G-Man badge out of doing the IRS's work for it?

michael webster's picture

Before and After

Mufflerman writes:

"My personal opinion is that one (uncollected tax revenue) should have absolutely nothing to do with the other (health care reform) and that health care reform legislation should be allowed to live or die on its own merits"

Whatever the merits of this argument, it is of no use to you once the Health Care Act was enacted - any repeal of the funding mechanism has to provide an alternative funding solution.  Nobody until recently could agree where the money was going to come from - it will now come from higher taxes.  (See my related article on collective action surprises.)

You probably want to hope that those higher taxes are not your customers in 2012.

Granville_Bean's picture

Let's go over this again...

Barr says: "And there is no money to pay for Romneycare. "

Romneycare has no 1099 requirement.  Therefore these are two separate questions.

Granville_Bean's picture

so what's the problem?

Muffler says:  "So, when I service Joe the plumber's van, I do an oil change in January, transmission flush and oil change in June, and an oil change, wiper blades and brakes in December.  Oh crap, the wiper blades put him over $600 for the year, "

So the plumber sends you a 1099, since you furnished him goods or services over $600.  What's the problem?

Mufflerman's picture

My conclusions

The conclusion I would draw is that in the zeal to create a health care reform bill that would ultimately be enacted into law, legislators looked for every possible way to limit the reported cost(s) of the reform and one way to do that was to attach a 1099 provision and connect an increased tax revenue number to that provision to lower the net cost of the legislation, thereby making it more defensible for the politicians who favored reform. 

My personal opinion is that one (uncollected tax revenue) should have absolutely nothing to do with the other (health care reform) and that health care reform legislation should be allowed to live or die on its own merits.  I personally don't support  "scrapping" the legislation but firmly believe that it was and is laden with many unintended consequences that will have to be dealt with as it evolves.  The 1099 provision was one such consequence that, thankfully, lawmakers upon reflection recognized as needing repeal before it ever took effect.

michael webster's picture

Franchisee Compliance

Mufflerman writes:

"Let's say a franchisor believes that underreporting is rampant in the system and is costing royalty and advertising revenues to be compromised. (Hard to imagine, I know, but stay with me).

Should they require franchisees to enforce the rules on each other, or should they conduct audits and target the bad actors themselves?

Where does the ultimate responsibility for enforcement lie?"

This is an excellent, albeit side issue, worth of an entire story.  Which is in the works, if I can get certain vendors and suppliers on board as key partners with IAFD.

Mufflerman also writes:

"Estimates to the amount of revenue which would be realized by this provision were vastly overstated as a means of funding the health care reform and making it appear more "revenue neutral" than it is. If Congress believes that the amount of underreporting of this revenue is a huge problem, they have the IRS to help eliminate the abuse, not business owners."

Let us suppose the premises to be true. If true, what conclusion do you want to draw and why?  Because it is not obvious to me where these premises if true lead to.  For example, if the last premise is true, then why wouldn't you expect the IRS to simply enforce by regulation, policy or practice or rule change if necessary, something similar?  Is it your overall position, you and not the CFA, that the healthcare reform is too expensive and should be scrappped and anything that leads to the conclusion is worth voting for?  (Remember this is a diagnostic effort  - I have zero personal interest in what happens to the US Health Care system; I have an inordinate interest in how people explain their position.)

Mufflerman's picture

Oh, Canada!

Sorry,

Didn't realize I wasn't signed in, Michael.  That post is, was, all mine.  Feel free to respond away!

michael webster's picture

Uh, No and Double No

Keith writes:

"And if you look at the votes in both the Senate and the House, our position had widespread bipartisan support.

Since the measure passed and will be signed by President Obama, I consider the subject closed."

No, legislation is never closed, it always has consequences, and you will be monitoring the result of this change.

On a larger point, you now have 26-30 reasonably informed comments on a political topic that you could not have paid to get from a survey.  (And unlike Tyler Cowan, I don't -but perhaps should- assert any property rights in the comments which follow mine.)  You are welcome.

michael webster's picture

Consistent P/L

JD writes:

"Michael, I'm actually surprised that you would be in favor of this. 

Let's look at it from a franchisor/franchisee role.  I think everyone here would agree that there are franchisees that under-report sales to the franchisor. 

So, using the same reasoning behind the 1099 issue to catch tax-cheat people, would you be in favor of the franchisors requiring audit or 'agreed upon procedure' reports from independent auditors for sales that were reported to franchisors?"

1.  The question about whether the 1099 requirement would have generated mountains of paperwork and made compliance practically impossible is not a question I have a view on - except I am pretty sure that the people arguing for the increased workload are not engaging with either GB or the views presented in the NY Times.  Part of my role has always been to promote engagement of differing views, whether or not there is agreement.  People are often, but not predictably certain of views that are false.  False, certain and predictable  views generally get wiped out, but 2 out of 3 has adaptive value.  Unfortunately.

2.  And on the need for a consistent P/L which requires good quality information from franchisees, I am in favor of that.  Those aren't costs, they are benefits.  Just flip that from left to right.

michael webster's picture

Would Respond, but ..

Candor and transperancy are important to the IAFD.  While BMM has allowed less than full registrations, my policy is not to answer even fascinating and interesting posts from guests.  I may respond to posts that a) there is not full registration, but b) are interesting.  You may always email for further private correspondence.  Like all policies, there will be exceptions.

Bob Frankman's picture

Re: 1099 Properly Squashed

Ironically, this idea was so bad that both the IFA (representing franchisors) and CFA (representing franchisees) lobbied to get it reversed. - Mufflerman

I wish I had said that. That's good!

Bob Frankman's picture

Congrats to the CFA on repealing 1099

Congratulations to the members of the Coalition of Franchisee Associations on their efforts that resulted in  the successful repeal of 1099, the IRS form from the new Health Care Law that would have mandated additional paperwork and disclosure by business owners for all payments of more than $600 a year paid to businesses.

We needed that like we needed a hole in the head.

Well done.

Oh, Canada!

"is the CFA condoning tax cheating by supporting the repeal of measure that that catches cheaters?"

Really?

C'mon Michael, you're better (and smarter) than that. Estimates to the amount of revenue which would be realized by this provision were vastly overstated as a means of funding the health care reform and making it appear more "revenue neutral" than it is. If Congress believes that the amount of underreporting of this revenue is a huge problem, they have the IRS to help eliminate the abuse, not business owners.

As an analogy, let's say a franchisor believes that underreporting is rampant in the system and is costing royalty and advertising revenues to be compromised. (Hard to imagine, I know, but stay with me). Should they require franchisees to enforce the rules on each other, or should they conduct audits and target the bad actors themselves? Where does the ultimate responsibility for enforcement lie?

While I agree that "the point of debate is to explore all sides on an issue", I would hasten to add "except when one abandons logical reasoning and argument and resorts to irrational reaction-baiting statements".

Surprised at Michael's stance

First, working in an accounting department where you have to send out 1099s, I'm glad that it will be repealed.  For 95% of the 1099s that you send out it's easy and things don't change from year to year.  It's the other 5% that take a lot of time.  I'm pretty sure that it took 10-15 phone calls to one person to get their W-9, then you have people that are sole proprietors that switch over to a llc or partnership and you aren't aware of it and you send out an incorrect 1099.  It's situations like that that take the time. 

Michael, I'm actually surprised that you would be in favor of this.  Let's look at it from a franchisor/franchisee role.  I think everyone here would agree that there are franchisees that under-report sales to the franchisor.  So, using the same reasoning behind the 1099 issue to catch tax-cheat people, would you be in favor of the franchisors requiring audit or 'agreed upon procedure' reports from independent auditors for sales that were reported to franchisors?  Like the 1099s it would be an additional cost to the franchisee. 

1099s

GB wrote: "

I don't know what MA has to do with the 1099 requirement, since it's not a part of the MA Mandated Health Care law (a/k/a Romneycare).  Since MA doesn't require these 1099s, there is zero 1099 compliance cost in MA."

And there is no money to pay for Romneycare.  The solons on Beacon Hill have indeed looked at adding more papaerwork and other requirements to raise money, and, of course, outsource the work that governments are supposed to be doing onto employers.

If access to health care is such a vital human issue, why are, say, sub shop owners suddenly in charge of it?

GB, since you don't mind doing more of the government's work, there are some potholes on my street that the public works department seems to be too busy to get around to.....  Kidding.  Sort of.

Mufflerman's picture

1099's were a bad idea, properly squashed

As a Meineke franchisee, I am relieved by the repeal.  All business to business transactions by check over $600 in a calendar year?  So, when I service Joe the plumber's van, I do an oil change in January, transmission flush and oil change in June, and an oil change, wiper blades and brakes in December.  Oh crap, the wiper blades put him over $600 for the year, it's 1099 time or someone is in non-compliance with the IRS?  No one is condoning tax evasion, and everyone understands the fiscal mess that the country is in but relying on businesses to police each other to generate tax revenue is simply not the answer.  Ironically, this idea was so bad that both the IFA and CFA lobbied to get it reversed.

Debate is great, but take a position

Part of what is required for a debate is to take a position. If I say the sky is blue, I think you would say it might not be blue. If I ask what color it is, you again respond that it might not be blue. Sometimes you need to stand up and take a position. I guess I would like you to state that you are against the repeal of the 1099 requirement. It would also be nice if the organization you so closely tie yourself with also stated that they were against the repeal. Unless, of course, that is not your position.

That said, I have no problem addressing your concerns. First, as I mentioned before, we do base the CFA positions on input from our franchisee members. But I think I can address the issues best from a personal position. I think there is no denying that some level of work would be required to comply. Either I would do that personally, or pay a staff member or accountant to accomplish that. I make my living selling sandwiches, not filling out paperwork. Any reduction, or stopping new, administrative functions allows me to spend more resources on making money selling sandwiches.

Your second item incorrectly states that the CFA says those not filing a 1099 are not a significant tax avoidance problem. Those are your words. However, I don't think there is really any proof that the requirement would have added the revenue stated. It is the IRS opinion, but I would question that accuracy. It doesn't really matter to me because as an honest taxpayer, I don't see that it is my responsibility to have additional work for my company to make sure others comply with IRS law and properly pay taxes. I am not the police for the IRS, and I certainly don't get paid for it.

It is not always easy to take positions and subject yourself to scrutiny. Like with other boards I have served on, we have the discussion and debate, and come to a decision on whether to take a position or not. In this case we made that decision, are fully transparent in our position, and proudly stand by it. And if you look at the votes in both the Senate and the House, our position had widespread bipartisan support.

Since the measure passed and will be signed by President Obama, I consider the subject closed.

michael webster's picture

Debate

Keith;

You are missing much by not engaging in the debate.  This is not about personalities. (Indeed, the IAFD LLC does not have nor need a corporate personality.  By deliberate design, there are no spokespersons for the IAFD.)

1.  The CFA says that the additional paperwork would be a huge burden; GB a multiunit operator for a well known system demurs and says otherwise.  (I somehow doubt that Subway HQ could not find an easy electronic method to handle 72k standard transactions, but perhaps there is something to this.) How do you say that we should choose between these two views?

2.  The CFA says that those not filing a 1099 are not a significant tax avoidance problem; the IRS on the other hand has claims to have identified some 16 billion in missing tax revenue.  How do you say that we choose between these two views?

These are reasonable questions that any one of your board members has likely asked or thought about.  And people here are primarily interested in the reasons for action.  We don't have to agree, but we do become more aware through deliberate discussion in which we are hard on issues, and not on people.

 

CFA Positions

Michael, yes, it is the CFA position to have supported the 1099 repeal, which passed the U.S. Senate today. I also want to publicly disclose that I am the Government Relations Committee Chair for CFA, and am also a Subway franchisee. While Misty did the post on the issue, Misty gets her direction from the CFA GR Committee and the CFA Board. The basis of this position is franchisee driven. I am assuming from your questioning of the position that you were against the repeal. Since you are also the spokesperson for the IAFD, I am assuming that is the position of that organization. Unfortunately, that position is never stated. It seems that you have a habit of always criticizing every position we take, yet offer no clear position on your part or the IAFD. I guess it is always safer to not take a position, but to criticize other positions.

As far as your statement of accusing the CFA of condoning tax cheats, that is so low it doesn't even need a response. The fact is that it would have been an additional paperwork burden. You state that we franchisees could simply use a credit card to solve the issue. Many vendors & landlords do not take credit cards. You also miss the flip side of it. I have customers, like real estate agents, who order a couple times a month for open houses. I would now receive a 1099 from each of them, after each called me for my tax id. To show how ridicules it can become, there are about 24,000 Subways in the U.S. Each of them would need to send a 1099 for royalties, for the advertising trust, and for the supply company at a minimum. With at least three for each store, at least 72,000 1099s would descend upon Subway HQ each year.

There are many reasons to have taken our position. It is always easy to take pot shots at a position as you can always find a small issue with almost anything. But we do take positions and will continue to take positions with the input of our franchisee members.

michael webster's picture

Better Argument

GB writes:

" Since MA doesn't require these 1099s, there is zero 1099 compliance cost in MA."

This is even a better argument for irrelevancy of the comparison than I made.  I am going to refer to it in future, andl likely convince myself that I thought of it.

michael webster's picture

Tax Cheats

GB writes:

"  I don't like more paperwork, yet I also don't like tax cheats since we pay ours.  So if this really would capture such a vast pool of unreported income as claimed, then I gotta say I'd actually be in favor of it!"

Granville Bean raises another important aspect to this issue:  is the CFA condoning tax cheating by supporting the repeal of measure that that catches cheaters?

I deliberately the point in a provocative manner -but, the point of debate is to explore all sides on an issue, even when resolution or common agreement appears unlikely.

Granville_Bean's picture

MA doesn't require 1099s

I don't know what MA has to do with the 1099 requirement, since it's not a part of the MA Mandated Health Care law (a/k/a Romneycare).  Since MA doesn't require these 1099s, there is zero 1099 compliance cost in MA.

Granville_Bean's picture

modern software?

Barr says: "Large multi unit owners use inside and outside CPAs, bookeepers and other service providers to deal with these things.  They most definitely do NOT pay vendors with credit cards nor give them electronic ACH access to their bank accounts."

So the really small businesses can use their credit cards, and the bigger ones can use staff or their consultants.  Though I do know a multi-operator who likes to use his Amex and collects a couple million reward points every year.  I don't like more paperwork, yet I also don't like tax cheats since we pay ours.  So if this really would capture such a vast pool of unreported income as claimed, then I gotta say I'd actually be in favor of it!

Nowadays surely just about everyone in business has a computer of some kind, and basic business software is pretty cheap.  I'd expect Intuit and others would have a feature in their software to crank these out, if they don't already. (We still use an old software package bought years ago, so I don't know what the current features are.)

michael webster's picture

Uh - Not a Primer

Thanks, I am fairly familiar with the many arguments presented by CNN - some of which are worthwhile.  Lesson 2 seems more like a good story than true.

But, you confirm what I thought - you are interested in getting rid of the new Health Care law.  But then this has very little do whether 1009 really does increase compliance costs.  You are interested in a different set issues, primarily to do with whether guaranteed issue and community funding will increase/decrease medical costs.

To repeal 1009 requires Congress to find alternative funding for the new Health Care Law, it won't eliminate funding. Supporters of the repeal must now find funding for a law which they are opposed to.  Odd, isn't it.

1099-you asked for it..

A primer (doesn't really explain the giant PIAs created by the enormous new bureaucracies spawned by the new Mass health care that President obama is cribbing), but it demonstrates that this was destined to fail from inception.  When it does fail (as it is now in Massachusetts), the new bureaucrats begin passing NEW laws and creating NEW processes, forms and, of course, fees and taxes.  1099s are just the beginning is my point.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

1099-you asked for it..

A primer (doesn't really explain the giant PIAs created by the enormous new bureaucracies spawned by the new Mass health care that President obama is cribbing), but it demonstrates that this was destined to fail from inception.  When it does fail (as it is now in Massachusetts), the new bureaucrats begin passing NEW laws and creating NEW processes, forms and, of course, fees and taxes.  1099s are just the beginning is my point.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

michael webster's picture

Compliance Costs

B writes: 

"A look at Massachusetts will easily show where the additional administrative burdens associated with trying to fund Obamacare will go.  Fact."

Great, and could you easily link to that information.  Thanks.  It appears your concern is not with the costs of 1099, which if repealed would have to be funded in any event, but rather with the costs associated with funding the new Health Care Law.  Is that right?

Next, if the 1099 continues do you anticipate small franchisees using a separate credit card to pay vendors? Or are you thinking that managing the float and payables would take precedence?

We cannot minimize the 1099 fiasco

Large multi unit owners use inside and outside CPAs, bookeepers and other service providers to deal with these things.  They most definitely do NOT pay vendors with credit cards nor give them electronic ACH access to their bank accounts.  Compliance costs money.  Adding new things to comply with adds even more costs.  Complaince bureaucracies always multiply and never shrink.  They always outsource the work items to the people they are created to "serve."  Always.

It is no wonder that a CPA firm principal who will make billing clients  for a new mandatory service "somewhat routine" isn't at all worried about this, and in fact is trying to dissuade clients from opposing it.

A look at Massachusetts will easily show where the additional administrative burdens associated with trying to fund Obamacare will go.  Fact.

This is bad and needs to go away before it grows to eat its host

michael webster's picture

Semantics and Argument

Misty writes:

" I suggest the franchisee community work together and focus on the real issue here rather on semantics. Let's get this bill passed."

It is not semantics to inquire into the arguments pro/con for any piece of legislation.  The CFA's position, as you have articulated it is: "workload and reporting requirements would increase dramatically."

GB, well known around here for being a smart operator, disagrees that the workload would dramatically increase.  Is he right?  

Robb Mandelbaum writing in the New York Times, also wonders: 

"But now that Congress must reconcile two very different approaches to striking the provision, it may be a good time to risk pillory and wonder if perhaps the new law’s supposed crippling effects on small business are exaggerated. ... To be sure, the new 1099 law will require more resources from small businesses. But will it require hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars, or both, from each? That is far less certain. “I think once people get over the initial hump of dealing with these things, in whatever form it ends up in, it’s going to become somewhat routine,” said Mr. Brown, who likened it to other regulations that seemed draconian at the outset. “There’ll be a lot of kicking and screaming going in, but eventually we’ll get past it one way or another.”

Is Mr. Brown, a tax partner with Sensiba San Filippo, a Silicon Valley accounting firm right?

Arguments and facts are neeed, not a simple call to action.

mchally's picture

1099

I agree that franchisees will not have to spend "all of their time" on paperwork. The point is that their workload and reporting requirements would increase dramatically. I suggest the franchisee community work together and focus on the real issue here rather on semantics. Let's get this bill passed.

I would agree

I would agree

michael webster's picture

GB - Credit and Debit Cards and 1099

GB writes: 

"But to say that franchisees would have to spend "all of their time" on paperwork is a bit over the top and detracts from the credibility of the message."

The IRS has already exempted those payments by credit or debit card - so by minimizing the amount of checks you use to pay vendors, you can comply fairly easily with the regulation.  There is some concern about obtaining the taxpayer number of the vendor in order to issue them a 1099.

Granville_Bean's picture

A PITA but...

The proposed requirement would be a PITA but to say that franchisees would have to spend "all of their time" on paperwork is a bit over the top and detracts from the credibility of the message.  It wouldn't be that hard to come up with who we spent more than $600 with, though I think it would actually prove simpler to just 1099 everyone

We'll be happy if we don't have to do it, but really, for the author to write "all of their time" was a bit much. It's like complaining because you have to send every employee a W-2, and we have far more employees in a year than we do vendors. Yet somehow we manage to get out all those W-2s.

CFA Votes

Thank you for this. I'm clicking through now.

mchally's picture

CFA Votes is fixed. Thanks for letting me know.

Thanks for letting me know!

Misty

CFA Votes

The link appears to be broken...