It would depend what kind of earnings from what source of income. You'll get all your tax forms in late January so you'll have a better idea then, but for now the link Dexster provided can help: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Do-I-Need-to-File-a-Tax-Return?
It's all mturk earnings. Are you saying mturk will send the forms even if I'm not over $600 from one requester?
Question: Why would an individual requester have to send a 1099 if I earn over $600 from them? What that amount already be accounted for in the 1099 I will receive from MTurk? Wouldn't that mean I'd be claiming that income twice, and paying taxes on it twice?
They are required by law to send them to you. mturk dose not send you one. The only 1099's you will get will be from the different companies you have worked for. Mturk is not a real company, just a middle man and they are not the ones paying you. Get it?
Okay. Makes more sense now. I was thinking that MTurk sends one to me if it is over the $600. So will the requester ask for my information directly if needed, or would MTurk provide that to them? For example, IF I earned over $600 from (insertsomerequesterhere) would they email me for my tax info or would MTurk automatically send that to them?
The reason mTurk requests your SSN, is they can provide it to the Requester in the case that you meet the requirement for a 1099. No other time is your information provided to Requester's. This is my understanding of mTurk's FAQ on the subject.
Well said. I'll just add... It would be illegal, jckruth, for the requester not to be able to say they know your SSN is "on file" before having you do work for them. That would be pretty much the same thing as hiring under-the-table workers, because they would not have any actual proof that you can work legally in the country. I think MTurk having it in their files means that only the requesters who actually need the SSN for tax purposes will get it, yet all requesters, even ones who paid you just a penny during the year, can say (if the IRS asks) that they know you have tax info on file, which makes it all legit in the feds' eyes.
If you look at the blog post here: http://turkrequesters.blogspot.in/2012/11/pakgamers-is-now-dead-win-for-requesters.html , it becomes obvious that the primary intention of Amazon in asking for SSN is not for tax purposes, I might be wrong. These Pakscammers were defrauding mTurk until last September by creating fake US accounts and buying products illegally through gift certificates. Asking for SSN within mTurk would have been the only option in front of Amazon to stop this loot. I'm glad this practice finally stopped.
My favorite part of that post is the third comment to it. Lessons not learned, anyone? But more seriously, Amazon Payments can't issue money to anyone without legal ID, and for US citizens, that includes an SSN. This is part of the banking laws enacted after 9-11, to ensure that US movements of money are more trackable. So that has to be part of Amazon's motivation as well. I think it's useful that asking for the SSN allows them to thwart Pakgamers and similar scams, but I don't think that's their main motivation. They can't run Amazon Payments without complying with federal laws, and no Turker will do work that they can't get paid for.
That may very well be, but that is not what Amazon is saying. As naturegirl has pointed out, it seems that in an effort to stay in compliance with the law Amazon is essentially benefiting in more than one way. Kill a bird with two stones type of situation.
What needs to be clear is if this work is considered self employment or contract work. I just confirmed this on the IRS website, it's the difference of having to make $400 if self employed or $600 as a contract worker. This is contract work, correct?
It's strange how they word it isn't it? "Because workers are paid as contractors rather than employees, requesters do not have to file forms for, nor pay payroll taxes, and they avoid laws regarding minimum wage, overtime, and workers compensation. Workers, though, must report their income as self-employment income." So we are paid as contract workers but have to file as self employed. Makes sense?
I'm reporting just to be on the safe side. I'm not quite sure what we're supposed to do, and it's better safe than sorry.
This is not a useful distinction in filing US taxes, because there is no option to just file as a contract worker. So there's no unfairness there. Look at this IRS document to see that they lump it all under self-employment. ETA: It's even clearer in this IRS document.
Would it be fair to say "to the requesters we are contractors" to the IRS, our relationship is self employed?
I think so. But I'm also an advocate for Turkers thinking of themselves as self-employed, because we really are. Technically, we even set our own rates, in the sense that we can refuse any work that doesn't meet our standards for pay, and there is no penalty for refusing (as there would be if we were employees). So ultimately, I think I'm back to...a self-employed person often works as a contractor, and that's what I personally think I do here on Turk.
A self-employed person is equivalent to a contract worker. Think of it this way: You are a consultant, the company is hiring you to do consulting work. Your company is 'your legal name'. You are a 3rd party and not a employee.
Yep. In fact, on the 1040 Schedule C form (used to declare self-employed business income) there is a place where it asks you what your business name is, if any. In other words, if you have no business name but have self-employed profits, the IRS considers the name of your business to be the same as your legal name. So as a Turker, you may not think you're in business for yourself, but the IRS does.