If you are paid a wage or a salary for temporary work, the employer must deduct ALL taxes, social security and workers comp. If you are a subcontractor paid on a 1099, (which means YOU will pay all the taxes, etc) then no deductions are taken from your compensation. So it depends on the agreement you have with the contractor. He cannot, however, just take out workers comp and nothing else.
Absolutely, positively not.
What does your contract have to say?
Depending on the subcontractor, a written proposal for the work is accepted, and once done, an invoice is sent for payment. The contractor typically has a construction loan that these bills are paid from. The bank will inspect the work to be sure it meets specs and permits and then release the money for payment.
What is the minium amount of money for not paying taxes with a 1099? Does everyone pay regardless if they earn 5,000.00 or 15,000.00 even acting a an independent contractor.
Not likely. There is no privity of contract between the homeowner and the subcontractor. The homeowner had an agreement with the general contractor, and that's the only person they have a duty to pay. The subcontractor can only pursue payment from the general contractor - to put a lien on the home would be to punish an innocent party - the homeowner. This is between the subcontractor and the general contractor, and there's no reason to bring the homeowner into this, since the homeowner doesn't owe the subcontractor anything.
A subcontractor can turn to Construction or mechanics lien law in order to secure payment. By being lien law compliant, meeting specific requirements such as preliminary notices and within time restrictions, a subcontractor can withhold payments to the primary contractor or lien the property. Lien laws are state specific and you should check your state's statutes for the requirements and restrictions. Property owners can protect themselves from these liens by requesting waivers or releases from all subcontracts and the primary contractor for each payment as well as a Contractor's Affidavit at the end of the job in exchange for the final payment.
Yes, a principal contractor can be vicariously liable for the actions of his subcontractor if the subcontractor is found to be an agent of the principal contractor. This typically occurs if the subcontractor is under the direct control or supervision of the principal contractor in carrying out the work.
this is a waiver of lien by contractor, subcontractor, or supplier.
In theory when a PRIME contractor hires a SUBCONTRACTOR, and the SUBCONTRACTOR causes a loss, damage, injury, etc., then the SUBCONTRACTOR's insurance should pay the expenses related to that loss. If the PRIME contractor causes the loss, then the PRIME contractor's insurance will pay for the loss. If the SUBCONTRACTOR does not have insurance (lapsed, fake certificates, etc.), then the PRIME contractor's insurance will have to pay for the loss even when caused by the SUBCONTRACTOR. In the real world, all parties get sued after a damage or injury loss. Later they sort out which party or parties were at fault. Most Prime-Contracts now contain language that makes the PRIME CONTRACTOR indemnify and holdharmless the owner, meaning pay for their costs also. Likewise, most SUB-CONTRACTS now contain a language that makes the SUBCONTRACTOR indemnify and holdharmless the other parties. These are important and tricky legal concepts and should not be taken causually. Proffessional advice is always recommended. Some insurance companies will try to deny coverage if the PRIME contractor did not have an "indemnity/holdharmless" agreement in the sub-contract.
Do you mean a contractor? Normally a contractor will hire a subcontractor to perform a portion of the entire scope of work. An example is that a general contractor will hire an electrician to install the wiring in a house.
a nominated subcontractor, with various provisions for obtaining indemnities by the subcontractor (or Employer) but under the main contractor responsibility and coordination, or ** another contractor, which FIDIC provides the incumbent Main Contractor is required to give site access, etc, etc to but coordinated by the Employer My own understanding, very simply put is that a nominated subcontractor is actually a "normal" subcontract between Main Contractor and Subcontractor, BUT that the nominated subcontractor is selected by the Employer and price agreed with the Employer directly. That would mean that the Main Contractor has the accountability for the subcontractor, notwithstanding any indemnities. The Consultant has stated today that in their opinion: ** the nominated subcontractor is selected by the Employer and signs a contract direct with the Employer ** the Employer will secure assurances, bonds / performance sureties and warranties direct with the subcontractor, and ** that the Main Contractor DOES NOT sign a subcontract with the subcontractor ** that the main Contractor will not be held liable for certain specified warranties My understanding is that the Main Contractor still should sign a subcontract with the nominated subcontractor and assumes the responsibilities of a Main Contractor over the Subcontractor - though the Employer states that the Main Contractor has no liability specified warranty issues and quality (only). I would believe the Main Contractor still has a number of responsibilities in respect of the subcontractor and their general performance. The Consultant assures they have checked FIDIC and it is normal for the Employer to sign a subcontract direct with the Nominated Subcontractor. I would believe in that case it is not a "Nominated Subcontract", but instead a direct supplementary contract between the Employer and their Contractor (secondary contractor) Can you kindly advise quite simply, the contractual position of a nominated subcontract under FIDIC ...... ie does the Employer sign the contract / subcontract with the Nominated Subcontractor, or is it a subcontract between Main Contractor and Nominated Subcontractor with the normal (in general terms) obligations by the Main Contractor for the Subcontractor, to the Employer.
A nominated subcontractor is chosen by the client or architect, and the main contractor is not liable for the performance of the nominated subcontractor. In contrast, a selected subcontractor is chosen by the main contractor, who remains liable for the selected subcontractor's performance.
As with the BP oil spill the contractor is responsible for the subcontractor actions.
Legally, a union contractor can use a non-union subcontractor. However, it is often looked down upon and it is bad for business.
If the contractor has already finished the work you can not legally hold back his money. What on earth would you be holding it for anyway? Most states in the U.S do not require a contractor to be insured so you would have no legal grounds and are subject to suit by the contractor. If your upset that he didn't have insurance, You were supposed to check that before you hired the contractor in the first place. Holding the contractors money after the job is completed just looks like your trying to cheat the contractor out of his pay. If the contractor wants to, he can sue you and or place a lien on your house if you fail to pay.
So they can work as a general contractor and not have to work for someone else.