Re: damn damndamndamndamn CLUTTER!!!!!

[Barry Kieffer <barry -dot- kieffer -at- EXGATE -dot- TEK -dot- COM>]

This is pure clutter.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: c. brown [SMTP:frameguru -at- YAHOO -dot- COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 1:27 PM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      damn damndamndamndamn
>
> I knew it! NO TABLE SORT FEATURE.. am I missseeing things?
> Ann who is on a Spard8084... that's a joke.. with -8 mg of memory....
> what a joke.
>
> --- Chris Kowalchuk <chris -at- BDK -dot- NET> wrote:
> > Suzette is right.
> >
> > You only need to register a proprietorship if you
> > want it to have a bank
> > account and be able to carry on business in its name
> > instead of yours.
> > I'm quite sure that as a subcontractor, you do not
> > need to be a
> > business; most of my subcontractors aren't. I have
> > encountered some
> > agencies that insist that their subcontractors be
> > registered as
> > businesses. The only motive I can think of for this,
> > is that they
> > believe it will more clearly indicate the "arms
> > length" relationship
> > required between an employer and a subcontractor.
> > They wouldn't want to
> > be accused of "employing" you, and get stuck paying
> > all those nasty
> > benefits, CPP, and health insurance premiums etc.
> > This, of course, is
> > actually pretty silly, because the courts have ruled
> > on more than one
> > occasion that they define the subcontracting
> > relationship according to
> > the particular circumstances one is in, and not
> > according to the name
> > one has given oneself. However, it is a grey area.
> > Carry on, I'd say. If
> > Revenue Canada doesn't like it, they'll let you know
> > sooner or later...
> >
> > Chris Kowalchuk
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=