Perhaps an LLC (which is a pass-through entity) is the wrong structure to use here then. Perhaps a C-Corp would be more suitable?
Here's one example of what I'm referring to: https://www.altinn.no/en/start-and-run-business/planning-sta...
> "If your interpretation of the law stood, every company would simply require each employee to form an LLC and pay each employee as an independent contractor."
But that's exactly how companies hire external contractors today, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting there's anything wrong here?
The reason companies don't require each and every employee to form an LLC is because it makes things more difficult for everybody - not because it's illegal. Direct employment is much easier to manage, hence it's more popular. I don't see your point?
>much easier manage
This is patently false. Contractors are much much easier to manage.
It is perfectly legal to hire contractors. There is nothing wrong with this. What you can’t do is hire a contractor and treat them as an employee.
There is a legal difference. The IRS has a 20 part test.
Whether the engaging company pays you directly or pays an LLC you own is not part of that test.
If the IRS or a local government decides that you are being treated as an employee of the company, they will ignore the intermediate LLC.
Think about your argument for a second. If it holds true, employment laws are useless.
Single owner LLCs are pass through entities and they have no obligations to pay minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance etc…
If your interpretation of the law stood, every company would simply require each employee to form an LLC and pay each employee as an independent contractor.
In fact many companies do try this, and the IRS and state departments of labor go after them for it regularly.