The IRS reviews the income reported by a contractor and verifies, based on a relational criterion, whether the subcontractor is actually a contractor or an independent employee. Some measures used by the IRS to determine the relationship between the two parties include determining who determines the rules, who provides the tools and materials used for the work, and who pays the business expenses. . . .
The above examples are just some of the changes contained in the new 2007 RIBA agreements. Owners and architects should be particularly aware of these new changes to ensure that they understand exactly what they are signing. While the goal was to create a flexible set of contracts that offset the risk between the parties, other controversial issues were created, which ultimately jeopardized a successful first year.5 In summary, users should not feel too comfortable with the 2007 sequel, as it is likely that we will see significant revisions in the course of next year. Several amendments aim to establish a more balanced agreement between the parties. However, clients must ensure that their interests are protected. For example, the net contribution clause now seems optional. If a client prefers to cap the architect`s liability rather than opt for the net contribution clause, the client must ensure that the net contribution is erased directly himself. The RIBA 2007 agreements consist of separate individual components, tailored to the individual needs of each project during assembly. They contain the most recent legislative changes, including the recently amended CDM rules, as well as the new riba Outline Plan of Work 2007.
Agreements are available for the appointment of the “architect” or “advisor”, are offered in the “Standard”, “Concise” or “Domestic” forms and are fully accompanied by client guides and draft amendments, including a sub-advisor guarantee, a schedule of third party rights and replacement/novation contracts.1 Last year, after two years of consultation, RIBA has launched a new set of agreements. specially designed to provide a fairer distribution of risk between client and client and architects, as well as an innovative and flexible appointment booking system. The sequel is now approaching its first anniversary, but it seems that there is still a very lively debate about its success. Owners and architects have problems with the amended clauses, and more interestingly, RIBA and the Association of Architects (“ACA”) are not able to present a unified front, as the ACA refuses to approve the new forms. So, Stacy Sinclair asks, what is it all about? The standard agreement for the appointment of an architect (S-Con-07-A), which replaces the previous SFA/99 and CE/992, is a package that contains: While new agreements may seem known, architects should take particular account of new changes and understand the importance of their effects before intervening blindly. . . .