[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-303393-105":53,"doc-detail-303393-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","united-trades-group-llc-v-iowa-workforce-development-proposed-decision","United Trades Group, LLC v Iowa Workforce Development - Proposed Decision","","Proposed Decision issued in an Iowa administrative hearing concerning a dispute over whether United Trades Group, LLC treated certain workers as employees or independent contractors. The hearing follows a telephone session on March 29, 2024, involving testimony from Tory Webb and an Iowa Workforce Development employer auditor. The matter considers an unemployment insurance tax audit covering 2020–2022, including letters, exhibits, payment practices, and integration of workers into the drywall and painting business, under relevant Iowa code factors.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/united-trades-group-llc-v-iowa-workforce-development-proposed-decision/303393/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-trades-group-llc-v-iowa-workforce-development-proposed-decision/303393.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Oliver Hayes","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-02","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What issue does the Proposed Decision address?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between United Trades Group, LLC (Tory Webb) and workers performing services for the company.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What triggered the Iowa Workforce Development unemployment insurance tax audit?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"An audit was triggered after a 10-99 tax form was issued to the company and after investigators found the Appellant did not have an unemployment account with the State of Iowa.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How did the audit evaluate whether the workers were employees or independent contractors?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The decision relied on factors such as the method and timing of payment and how closely the workers’ work integrated with the Appellant’s drywall and painting business, including testimony and submitted exhibits.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},303393,1790223950,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":79},687207020761,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2024 MAY 03 9:43 AM ADMIN HEARING E-FILING SYSTEM  \nIN THE IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DIVISION CENTRAL PANEL BUREAU  \n\n| United Trades Group, LLC Tory Webb\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr> 50211, Appellant,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>Iowa Workforce Development, Respondent. | ))\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>) | Case No. 24IWDM0014\u003Cbr>PROPOSED DECISION |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n\nThis matter came before the undersigned for a telephone hearing on March 29, 2024. Tory Webb (“Webb”), of United Trades Group, LLC, (“Appellant”) was present and testified. Lisa Gaeta (“Gaeta”), Employer Auditor for Iowa Workforce Development (“IWD”), appeared and testified. Also present for IWD, but not testifying, were Stephanie Goods and Charles Mercer. IWD was represented by attorney Jeffrey Koncsol. IWD submitted a Table of Contents describing 12 documents, which are sequentially numbered pages 1 – 37. In addition, IWD presented an additional exhibit 13 consisting of 5 pages. IWD’s documents were admitted into the record without objection. IWD’s exhibits will be referred to in this Proposed Decision by exhibit number according to the order they appear in the Table of Contents, exhibits 1 – 12, plus the sequential page number as assigned by IWD. Exhibit 13, is marked as such and shall be referred to as Exhibit 13. The Appellant submitted documents which included: W-9 forms; Sub Contractor – Employee Guideline documents; Subcontractor Audit Questionnaires; and, text messages, consisting of 34 pages. These are collectively identified as Appellant’s exhibit A, pages 1-34, which were also admitted without objection. Appellant’s exhibits are referred to in this Proposed Order by Exhibit letter and page number in the order in which they appear in the administrative file.  \nISSUE  \nWhether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Appellant, Tory Webb, and certain workers performing services for the Appellant.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT  \nIWD conducted an unemployment insurance tax audit regarding the Appellant business. The business owner, Webb, testified that United Trades Group, LLC, is in the business of doing drywall and painting work. (Webb Testimony) . Gaeta performed the audit for IWD. Gaeta testified that she has a C.P.A. license and previously worked for 30 years in private industry in positions of Controller and V.P. of Finance. She has received specialized audit training with IWD  \nDocket No. 24IWDM0014 Page 2  \nand has been conducting about 100 audits per year for the previous five (5) years. This particular audit was triggered when Gaeta was conducting another audit with a different company and found a 10-99 tax form issued to the Appellant company. Gaeta found the Appellant did not have an unemployment account with the State of Iowa, which triggered the audit.  \nOn October 16, 2023, Gaeta issued a letter to the Appellant advising that she had completed her review for the period of 2020 through 2022 and found that 12 workers should be classified as employees, per Iowa Code 96.1A(16)(f)(1) . The letter provided instructions to Webb to provide additional evidence that he believed may support his position that the workers were independent contractors and not employees. (Ex. 12, p. 37) .  \nOn November 20, 2023, Gaeta issued a letter to Webb, titled “Unemployment Insurance Tax Audit Results.” (Ex. 7, p. 14) . The letter again asserted the 12 previously identified workers were employees and not independent contractors. This decision was supported by citing certain factors, which tend to show a worker is an employee rather than an independent contractor. (Ex. 7, p. 15) . Those included the following:  \n1) Method of Payment – weekly/hourly rate of pay, 871 – 23.19(1) . The group of workers IWD believed to be employees during the audit period were paid on an hourly basis and received payment on a weekly basis. (Gaeta Testimony) (Ex. 10, p. 25) . Gaeta stated that being paid on an hourly rate of pay and being paid on a weekly basis is consistent with a person working as ","cbCaidSe449Ceh1e","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidSe449Ceh1e","pdf",150955,10,"English","# Issue\n## Employer-employee relationship\n# Findings of Fact\n## Parties and hearing testimony\n## Trigger for the unemployment insurance audit\n## Audit correspondence and worker classification\n## Payment method factors\n## Degree of business integration","[{\"question\":\"What issue does the Proposed Decision address?\",\"answer\":\"Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between United Trades Group, LLC (Tory Webb) and workers performing services for the company.\"},{\"question\":\"What triggered the Iowa Workforce Development unemployment insurance tax audit?\",\"answer\":\"An audit was triggered after a 10-99 tax form was issued to the company and after investigators found the Appellant did not have an unemployment account with the State of Iowa.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the audit evaluate whether the workers were employees or independent contractors?\",\"answer\":\"The decision relied on factors such as the method and timing of payment and how closely the workers’ work integrated with the Appellant’s drywall and painting business, including testimony and submitted exhibits.\"}]","United Trades Group, LLC v Iowa Workforce Development - Proposed Decision | PDF",1789803003]