Misclassification is the single most expensive payroll mistake a growing company makes. The tests differ on each side of the border — and both look at control.
Why this keeps happening
Most misclassification isn't deliberate. A business hires its first “contractor” to move fast without the overhead of payroll setup, the relationship works well, and eighteen months later that person is working full-time hours, using company equipment, and reporting into a manager like any other employee — while still being paid on an invoice. Nobody revisited the classification because nothing about the day-to-day felt like a decision point. A written contract calling someone a contractor doesn't override the actual working relationship, and that gap is exactly where audits happen.
The Canadian test
In Canada, the CRA weighs control — who sets the hours, methods, and how the work gets done — alongside ownership of tools and equipment, chance of profit and risk of loss, and how integrated the worker is into the business. No single factor decides it on its own; the CRA looks at the whole relationship, and a worker who can be reassigned tasks at will, uses company-provided equipment, and bears no financial risk looks like an employee regardless of what the invoice says.
Getting this wrong exposes the business to retroactive CPP, EI, and payroll tax remittances, plus penalties and interest — and unlike a simple bookkeeping correction, this liability doesn't shrink the longer it goes unnoticed. It grows with every pay period.
The U.S. test
In the U.S., the IRS common-law test looks at similar ground through three lenses: behavioral control (does the company direct how the work is done), financial control (who bears the investment and risk), and the type of relationship (is there a contract, benefits, an expectation of permanence). Several states layer on a stricter ABC test on top of this — one that presumes employee status unless the business can clearly show all three conditions are met: the worker is free from control, performs work outside the company's usual business, and is customarily engaged in an independently established trade.
For companies operating across state lines, this means a worker correctly classified as a contractor in one state can fail the test entirely in another, purely based on where they're physically working.
What to do about it
Document the classification decision when the relationship starts, not after an audit letter arrives — a short memo noting how the factors were assessed is far more defensible than a memory of intent two years later. Revisit it if the working relationship changes: more hours, company equipment, an exclusive arrangement, a shift from project work to ongoing tasks. Reassessments almost always follow a change nobody flagged at the time, which is also the easiest moment to have fixed it.
Want this handled for you?
Our CPA-supervised team keeps books current, filings on time and reporting predictable.
