attention client voleur/ client who robs

[BookerL]

EagerBeaver

Within your describe context I agree with it

A lawyer who works by the hour pursuant to a contact is an independent contractor. Lawyers who work for insurance companies are salaried employees of the insurance company.

Ind the employer will produce a T4 for is employee lawyer
However where do you find quasi resemblance

I think you are confusing two areas of law. A typical partnership operating agreement does not define who are employees and independent contractors. It is a written document defining the nature of the partnership, who the partners are, their percentages of ownership in the partnership, how votes are taken, and decided, how disputes are resolved, and how partnership interests are assigned. No partnership agreement I have seen tells us who is an employee or who is an independent contractor.

I agree with this also in that context .
However as examples of the conduct of the Goverment has done in the past for escort agencies in Court they have claim uncollected Federal sales taxes (GST)Provincial sales taxes (TVQ),
Never have tried to claim employees deductions
Now agencies where ever sued for not producing T4 .
Now this conduct reveals something ,they know the grounds are not solid
http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2015/02/05/lex-reine-des-escortes-deshabillee-par-le-fisc
According to the taxman, Joelle Chelala has not paid all required amounts of GST and QST at the time when it controlled a network of escort agencies in the Montreal area.

Revenu Québec invokes a tax law article, according to which a company must "submit to the Minister a projected $ [...] or deduct, withhold or collect an amount" owed.

Many salaried employees (including myself, with the law firm that employs me) have employment agreements, specifying our compensation and benefits, the terms of the employment, etc.

If nothing is in writing, the common law determines the relationship of the parties pursuant to specified legal rules and principles. I could tell you what the law is where I practice but as I said previously, I am not familiar with nor am I licensed to practice law in Quebec. However, I would not be surprised if employee/independent contractor relationship is decided by the "control test" with criteria determined by the Quebec courts.

EagerBeaver in Quebec Common Law doesn't apply meaning whatever you know has a certainty in your ,jurisdiction might be far from true in Quebec
Another case for back taxes http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/09/prostitution-taxable-quebec-canada_n_6832954.html.


No jurisprudence exist at the moment to support your theory that a escort working for a agency is in fact a employee however many supports the theory that a escort working for a agency isn't a employee .
Until theres new rulings status quo remains




Cheers




Booker

 

[EagerBeaver]

BookerL,

It's not a legal business so it's very likely any of these issues would ever be litigated in court. However, the test for what is an employee and what is an independent contractor is the same for any business- i.e., any business which is operating legally and freely litigating their disputes in court. Theoretically, if that body of law was applied to the escort industry, escorts who are controlled would be determined to be employees for purposes of worker's compensation. Of course, I have never heard of an escort collecting worker's compensation, and it's highly unlikely any escort agencies maintain such insurance, which is required by law by anyone employing one or more employees where I practice.

 

[BookerL]

BookerL,

It's not a legal business so it's very likely any of these issues would ever be litigated in court. However, the test for what is an employee and what is an independent contractor is the same for any business- i.e., any business which is operating legally and freely litigating their disputes in court.

I am aware of the test ,I disputed one last year It is presently being appealed at Tax Court of Canada/Cour canadienne de l′impôt

Theoretically, if that body of law was applied to the escort industry, escorts who are controlled would be determined to be employees for purposes of worker's compensation. Of course, I have never heard of an escort collecting worker's compensation, and it's highly unlikely any escort agencies maintain such insurance, which is required by law by anyone employing one or more employees where I practice.

Hello EagerBeaver and all

I do agree it is not a legal business and also agree with you example ,but I will paraphrase a Quebec honorable judge ,

In his ruling, Quebec Court Judge Armando Aznar noted that Catudal had once been a contractor for Revenue Quebec.

“How can the plaintiff seriously declare he didn’t believe revenue from illegal sources was taxable while at the same time affirming he couldn’t declare it for fear of being arrested or charged criminally?” the judge wrote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/09/prostitution-taxable-quebec-canada_n_6832954.html


Revenue from illegal sources are taxable by law in Quebec .


Different jurisdiction, different laws, different jurisprudences, different applications EagerBeaver
The fact that escorting agencies are illegal ,which we agree upon, did not prevent Revenue services to claim back taxes ,but never mentioned employees deductions owed by employer to the Government if its not revealing enough nothing will




Cheers




Booker

 

[Mithridate]

BookerL,
Theoretically, if that body of law was applied to the escort industry, escorts who are controlled would be determined to be employees for purposes of worker's compensation. Of course, I have never heard of an escort collecting worker's compensation, and it's highly unlikely any escort agencies maintain such insurance, which is required by law by anyone employing one or more employees where I practice.

I have never seen an escort collecting for work's compensation, since it is illegal, sure every employer must register or if you are self employed you must insure yourself, I have seen once an exotic dancer asking for worker's compensation, fortunately the employer was paying is annual cotisation, but even if an employer would not be registered, the employee would still have the right to collect worker's compensation, and then the employer would have a fine and would have to pay back cotisations.

Qapla
M.