Law Office of Camron Hoorfar, PC

Claimant settled an earlier claim for repetitive injury to the “left upper extremity [,]” then made a later claim related to claimant’s left wrist, which the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied because of the settlement. Claimant challenged that conclusion of law as if it were a finding of fact, and so used an inapplicable analysis, but the Court of Appeals can nonetheless discern the challenge raised in claimant’s brief. The settlement “included pain in the left shoulder and numbness and tingling in the left hand, both of which are anatomical components of the left upper extremity [,]” and medical evidence showed that the wrist injury had the same cause as the rest of the earlier claim. The Commission did not err in concluding that the Commission had no authority over the later claim. 
Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Specialty Company 
(Overview Summary) 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD85163

Real property lease included an option for lessee to renew, which required lessee’s notice of intent to renew six months before the lease terms’ expiration. After the lease’s expiration, lessee continued to pay, and lessor to accept, rents before lessor filed an action for unlawful detainer. “By remaining in possession and paying rent after the expiration of the lease, the lessee elects to exercise the option [while, s]imply by accepting rent, the lessor waives the written notice requirement” for the entire term even if the amount does not cover the entire term. Evidence that lessee did not provide the required notice, and lessor’s statement to lessee about that fact, are therefore irrelevant. An appellate court need not review multifarious points relied on. Circuit court’s judgment for lessee affirmed. 
Eighty Hundred Clayton Corp., Respondent, vs. Lake Forest Development Corp., Appellant.
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED110390

Need legal help? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

A business might pay an independent contractor and an employee for the same or similar work, but there are key legal differences between the two. It is critical for business owners to correctly determine whether the people providing services are employees or independent contractors.

Here’s some information to help business owners avoid problems that can result from misclassifying workers.An employee is generally considered anyone who performs services, if the business can control what will be done and how it will be done. What matters is that the business has the right to control the details of how the worker’s services are performed. Independent contractors are normally people in an independent trade, business or profession in which they offer their services to the public.

Independent contractor vs. employee
Whether a worker is an independent contractor, or an employee depends on the relationship between the worker and the business. Generally, there are three categories to consider.

• Behavioral control − Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does the job?
• Financial control − Does the business direct or control the financial and business aspects of the worker’s job. Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? Things like how the worker is paid, are expenses reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.
• Relationship of the parties − Are there written contracts or employee type benefits such as pension plan, insurance, vacation pay? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Misclassified worker
Misclassifying workers as independent contractors adversely affects employees because the employer’s share of taxes is not paid, and the employee’s share is not withheld. If a business misclassified an employee, the business can be held liable for employment taxes for that worker. Generally, an employer must withhold and pay income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, as well as unemployment taxes. Workers who believe they have been improperly classified as independent contractors generally must receive a determination of worker status from the IRS. Then they can use Form 8919, Uncollected Social Security and Medicare Tax on Wages to figure and report their share of uncollected social security and Medicare taxes due on their compensation.

Voluntary Classification Settlement Program
The Voluntary Classification Settlement Program is an optional program that provides businesses with an opportunity to reclassify their workers as employees for future employment tax purposes. This program offers partial relief from federal employment taxes for eligible businesses who agree to prospectively treat their workers as employees. Businesses must meet certain eligibility requirements and apply by filing Form 8952, Application for Voluntary Classification Settlement Program, and enter into a closing agreement with the IRS

Who is self-employed?
Generally, someone is self-employed if any of the following apply to them.

• They carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor or an independent contractor.
• They are a member of a partnership that carries on a trade or business.
• They are otherwise in business for themselves, including a part-time business.

Self-employed individuals, including those who earn money from gig economy work, are generally required to file an tax return and make estimated quarterly tax payments. They also generally must pay self-employment tax which is social security and Medicare tax as well as income tax. These taxpayers may qualify for the home office deduction if they use part of a home for business.

Still need tax help? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

Coinbase Global Inc. is facing a U.S. probe into whether it improperly let Americans trade digital assets that should have been registered as securities. The company’s shares fell as much as 9.2%. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s scrutiny of Coinbase has deepened since the company’s platform broadened the number of tokens in which it offers trading, according to two people, who asked to remain anonymous since the inquiry has not been disclosed publicly. The probe by the SEC’s enforcement unit predates the agency’s investigation into an alleged insider trading plot that led the regulator to sue a former Coinbase manager and two others. The push for U.S. regulators to do more to oversee cryptocurrencies has strengthened as digital currencies have dropped from all-time highs, wiping out hundred of billions of dollars in market value.

Struggling financially? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a free consultation.

Federal authorities filed criminal and civil charges against a former Coinbase employee and two other men in an insider-trading case involving confidential information about cryptocurrency assets that were about to be posted on Coinbase’s exchange. All three of the men were involved in trades over nearly a year using information about 14 listings on Coinbase and generated about $1.5 million in illegal profits. The men were charged criminally with three counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. This case is the first time authorities have filed criminal insider-trading charges involving cryptocurrency.

The prosecutors and SEC claim Ishan Wahi, who at the time was part of a Coinbase team that listed assets on the exchange, shared confidential information about when some cryptocurrency assets would be listed with his brother, Nikhil Wahi, and his brother’s friend Sammer Ramani. Authorities say Nikhil Wahi and Mr. Ramani then used that information to buy the assets before Coinbase announced they would be listed. After the announcement, the men sold the assets for a profit. This alleged ploy was discovered after an internal investigation at Coinbase in April following a Twitter post about unusual trading.

Need to speak with an attorney? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

Federal authorities filed criminal and civil charges against a former Coinbase employee and two other men in an insider-trading case involving confidential information about cryptocurrency assets that were about to be posted on Coinbase’s exchange. The three men were involved in trades over 10 months using information about 14 listings on Coinbase that generated about $1.5 million in illegal profits. The men were charged criminally with three counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

The case is the first time the authorities have filed criminal insider-trading charges involving cryptocurrency assets. The prosecutors, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission in civil charging documents, said Ishan Wahi, who at the time was part of a Coinbase team that listed assets on the exchange, passed on confidential information about when some cryptocurrency assets would be listed to his brother, Nikhil Wahi, and his brother’s friend Sammer Ramani. Nikhil Wahi and Mr. Ramani used that information to buy the assets before Coinbase announced they’d be listed, the authorities said. After the announcement, the men sold the assets for a profit. The alleged scheme came to light after Coinbase began an internal investigation in April in response to a post on Twitter about unusual trading.

Need to speak to an attorney? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.