What should I do if I was fired from a job that I was working at off the books and now they are withholding my paycheck

Hello J:

Sue them in small claims court.

You SAY you worked off the books, but that's just another way of saying you were an independent contractor. Certainly, THAT'S what you'll call yourself when you're in court.

excon

What should I do if I was fired from a job that I was working at off the books and now they are withholding my paycheck

Consider

notifying the labor department for whichever state you are in, and
suing them in small claims court for the money they owe you.


I say "consider" because, since you were "working ... off the books", you appear to be complicit in tax evasion. I don't know if you would be in trouble for bringing this to light, but I suppose it's possible.

In some states there are statutory penalties for failure to pay employees within a certain time after termination.

What if it's only about $100 dollar paycheck.. would it even be worth it to go to small claims court? Is there a possibility that I could get in more trouble for working off the books than it's worth. Because when I initially started working there they told me that I was only going to be paid off the books for the first two weeks and then they were going to start putting me on the books, however they failed to put me on the books like they said they were and then gave me the option of going on the books or staying off. I decided to stay off the books because the company is going bankrupt anyway, they have been giving me my paychecks later than the day I'm due to get paid since I started working there. So since I knew they were going bankrupt and wasn't planning on keeping it as my permanent job, just temporary until I found another one, I stayed off the books.

I say "consider" because, since you were "working ... off the books", you appear to be complicit in tax evasion.Hello lawyer:

I disagree. Yes, it appears that in the OP's MIND, he was complicit... But, if he receives a 1099, it was ONLY in his mind.. You can't be convicted for stuff IN your mind... He certainly could be on the company's BOOKS as an independent contractor set to receive a 1099 just like ALL their independent contractors will.

He's neither complicit nor responsible for how the company keeps its books.

Now, I don't know the past... But, there's NO benefit for a company to hire an independent contractor "off the books", because independent contractors are off the books by the very nature of their contract. Therefore, I don't believe he's complicit in cheating anybody, nor do I know that anybody HAS been cheated.

Is he going to receive a 1099? He says no, but like I said above, there's NO advantage for the company to BE complicit in a crime with the OP.

excon

Hello lawyer:

I disagree. Yes, it appears that in the OP's MIND, he was complicit... But, if he receives a 1099, it was ONLY in his mind.. You can't be convicted for stuff IN your mind... He certainly could be on the company's BOOKS as an independent contractor set to receive a 1099 just like ALL their independent contractors will.

He's neither complicit nor responsible for how the company keeps its books.

Now, I don't know the past... But, there's NO benefit for a company to hire an independent contractor "off the books", because independent contractors are off the books by the very nature of their contract. Therefore, I don't believe he's complicit in cheating anybody, nor do I know that anybody HAS been cheated.

Is he gonna receive a 1099?? He says no, but like I said above, there's NO advantage for the company to BE complicit in a crime with the OP.

excon

Lots of people do it and get away with it. Does that makes it OK?

They may say the person is an "independent contractor", but if she (OP's handle is "JustineR", so I'm guessing it's a "she".) is subject to day-to-day direction and control by the boss, rather than simply going by the terms of a written contract, the "independent contractor" jargon is a ploy.

No advantage to the company? Sure there is. They don't have to put up with the hassle and expense of employee book-keeping. They don't have to pay payroll taxes.

Nobody being cheated? How about the honest employers who are put to a competitive disadvantage competing against employers who don't have payroll taxes in their overhead?

Calling an employee a 1099 "independent contractor" is not a legitimate option for employers who simply don't want to be troubled with the complexities of payroll accounting and the extra expenses of payroll taxes and unemployment insurance.

The 1099 dodge is an abuse of the system. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a crackdown.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

No advantage to the company? Sure there is. They don't have to put up with the hassle and expense of employee book-keeping. They don't have to pay payroll taxes.Hello again, lawyer:

The advantages you listed above are the SAME advantages the company has with an independent contractor. Therefore, I say again, there is NO advantage to the company for employing someone "off the books", as opposed to hiring him as an independent contractor. The workload is the same. The tax advantages are the same.

In fact, there are only downsides - and that's the complicity in the crime you mentioned.

excon

Ok. I see what you're saying. 1099 vs. no reporting at all. Well, sending out and filing 1099s is a hassle too, albeit a lesser one.

If you sue the company over the missing pay, you will open a can of worms that may wind up costing you even more.

Your employer will be investigated and may be forced to send you a 1099. In which case YOU will be responsible for paying the taxes on all the income you earned.

If you sue the company over the missing pay, you will open a can of worms that may wind up costing you even more.

Your employer will be investigated and may be forced to send you a 1099. In which case YOU will be responsible for paying the taxes on all the income you earned.



- And at which point IRS will look at the past 1 to 7 years' returns with a fine tooth comb, both yours and his.