Can my client company require me to attend paid training as a 1099 contractor?

This is definitely a gray area when it comes to contractor vs. employee classification. The IRS looks at several factors to determine worker status, with one key factor being "behavioral control" - meaning who controls when, where, and how the work gets done. Required training can be a red flag because it suggests the company is controlling how you do your work, which is typical of an employee relationship. However, context matters. If the training is simply to give you necessary information about their systems that you couldn't otherwise access (like security credentials or proprietary software orientation), it might be justified without violating your contractor status. The fact they're paying you for the training time is good, but it doesn't automatically make the requirement appropriate for a 1099 relationship.

I went through something similar last year with a tech client who kept blurring the lines. Check out https://taxr.ai - they have this contractor vs. employee analysis tool that helped me figure out if I was being misclassified. You upload your contract and answer some questions about your working relationship, and they give you a detailed breakdown of your classification risks. The tool flagged several issues in my contract that I hadn't even noticed, including mandatory meetings and training sessions. I used their report to renegotiate my terms and got much clearer boundaries. The peace of mind was worth it since misclassification can lead to serious tax headaches.

I used taxr.ai after seeing it mentioned here and wow - total game changer for my contractor situation! I was in a similar position with required training and meetings as a 1099. The analysis showed I was at high risk for misclassification, with 7 out of 20 factors leaning toward employee status. I took their recommended talking points to my client and renegotiated my contract. Now I have more flexibility about which meetings I attend, I complete required training on my schedule, and my contract language is much clearer about my independence. My client actually appreciated the clarity too since they didn't want IRS issues either. Definitely worth checking out if you're in this gray area!

If things go south with this client, you might need to talk to the IRS about possible misclassification. I tried calling them for months about a similar issue - literally spent HOURS on hold and never got through. Then I found https://claimyr.com and it changed everything. They have this system that holds your place in the IRS phone queue and calls you when an agent is about to answer. Check out how it works: https://youtu.be/_kiP6q8DX5c I finally got through to someone who explained my options for filing Form SS-8 to determine worker status. Saved me so much time and frustration compared to the endless hold music!

I have to eat my words about Claimyr. After dismissing it, I was still struggling with my contractor classification issues and decided to try it out of desperation. It actually worked exactly as advertised. Got a call back after about 90 minutes (which I spent actually doing billable work instead of listening to hold music). The IRS agent helped me understand that required training is a major factor in determining worker status and suggested filing Form SS-8 to get an official determination. The Claimyr service simply connected me when an agent came on the line - no magic, just practical technology. Saved me literally hours of frustration and helped me resolve my situation.

I'm a freelance developer and have dealt with this exact situation. From my experience, the key is in how you respond to their requirement. Instead of outright refusing, I've found success in reframing the conversation. Try saying something like: "I'll be happy to learn your systems to deliver the best results. As an independent contractor, I typically build these training costs into my project fee. Would you prefer I attend your specific training session at my contractor rate, or would you like me to handle the necessary familiarization independently at no additional cost?" This puts the ball in their court while maintaining your independent status.

Anybody else notice how the whole 1099 vs W2 thing is getting more confusing every year? My tax guy told me that the IRS is cracking down on misclassification big time in 2025.

You're absolutely right to be concerned about this. Required training is one of the biggest red flags for misclassification. The IRS specifically looks at whether the company controls not just what work you do, but HOW you do it - and mandatory training falls squarely into that "how" category. Here's what I'd suggest: Document everything about this training requirement (emails, contract language, etc.) and consider getting a professional assessment of your contractor status before proceeding. You mentioned you've been contracting for years - this kind of requirement is definitely outside the norm for true independent contractor relationships. If you decide to push back, focus on the business relationship aspect: "As an independent contractor, I typically determine the methods and training needed to deliver the agreed-upon results. I'm happy to ensure I have the necessary knowledge to complete the project successfully - would you prefer I handle system familiarization independently, or would you like to adjust our contract to reflect an employee relationship with the associated benefits and protections?" This approach makes it clear that you understand the legal implications while giving them a face-saving way to back down from the requirement.

I've been through something very similar and can tell you this is definitely a red flag situation. The fact that they're calling training "mandatory" while you're classified as a 1099 is exactly the kind of behavioral control the IRS scrutinizes when determining worker classification. Here's what worked for me: I approached it as a contract negotiation rather than a compliance issue. I told my client something like: "I appreciate that you want to ensure I have the knowledge needed to deliver excellent results. As an independent contractor, I typically determine the most efficient way to acquire necessary skills. I can either attend your training session at my standard rate plus travel time, or I can review your materials independently and schedule a brief consultation to clarify any questions - which approach would work better for your budget?" Most clients realize pretty quickly that paying contractor rates for training gets expensive, especially when you factor in travel time and prep. They usually prefer the independent study option, which maintains your contractor status while still getting you the information you need. The key is positioning yourself as a business partner solving a mutual problem, not as someone dodging requirements. Document their response either way - if they insist on mandatory training despite alternatives, that's valuable evidence of potential misclassification if issues arise later.

As someone who's navigated contractor classification issues for several years, I'd strongly recommend being very cautious here. Required training is one of the clearest indicators of an employer-employee relationship rather than a true independent contractor arrangement. The IRS uses a three-factor test: behavioral control, financial control, and relationship type. Mandatory training falls squarely under "behavioral control" - essentially, they're dictating HOW you do your work, not just WHAT results they want. This is a classic employee characteristic. Even though they're paying you for the training time, that doesn't solve the classification problem. In fact, it might make it worse because it suggests they view you as someone whose time they can purchase and direct, rather than someone they're hiring for specific deliverables. I'd document everything about this requirement and consider pushing back diplomatically. You could say something like: "I want to make sure I have all the information needed to deliver excellent results. As an independent contractor, would it be possible for me to review the training materials independently and schedule a brief consultation to address any questions? This approach would be more cost-effective and maintain the independent nature of our working relationship." If they insist on the mandatory in-person training, that's a serious red flag that this relationship might not qualify for 1099 treatment under IRS guidelines.

This is exactly the kind of situation that makes me glad I switched to being more proactive about contractor classification issues. I've been in similar spots and learned the hard way that it's better to address these red flags upfront rather than hope they don't become problems later. One thing I'd add to the excellent advice already given: consider how this training requirement fits into the broader pattern of your relationship with this client. Are they also dictating your work hours, requiring regular check-ins, providing equipment, or treating you like other employees in other ways? The IRS doesn't just look at individual incidents but at the totality of the working relationship. I'd also suggest getting clarity on what happens if you complete this training but then want to work with their competitors. True independent contractors should be free to use their skills and knowledge (including any training) for other clients. If they expect the training to create some kind of exclusive relationship or non-compete situation, that's another employee-like characteristic. Document everything about how you handle this situation - it could be valuable precedent for future contract negotiations with this client or others. The way you resolve this training issue will likely set the tone for how much control they expect to have over your work going forward.

I've been following this discussion and wanted to add a perspective from someone who's dealt with classification audits. The training requirement you're describing is problematic, but what's even more concerning is the pattern it might establish. I had a similar situation a few years ago where a client started with "just one mandatory training session" and within six months I was attending weekly team meetings, using their project management software on their timeline, and basically functioning as a remote employee without any of the benefits or protections. The IRS auditor who reviewed my case later told me that training requirements are particularly scrutinized because they represent the company investing in developing "their" worker rather than simply purchasing services. This creates an expectation of ongoing relationship and behavioral control that's inconsistent with true independent contractor status. My advice: if you decide to push back on this training requirement, also use it as an opportunity to clarify boundaries for the entire engagement. Ask questions like "What other company processes or meetings will I be expected to participate in?" and "How will we handle situations where your internal procedures conflict with my standard business practices?" Getting these issues sorted now will save you major headaches later, whether that's with the IRS or just with scope creep that gradually erodes your independence. The fact that you're asking these questions shows good instincts - trust them.

As a tax preparer who's seen the fallout from misclassification issues, I can tell you that required training is one of the most common red flags that leads to reclassification during IRS reviews. What you're describing - mandatory training that you can't opt out of or modify - is textbook behavioral control. Here's what I'd recommend: before you agree to anything, ask yourself if this training is truly necessary for you to deliver the specific work product they contracted you for, or if it's general company onboarding that they require of all workers. If it's the latter, that's a strong indicator they're treating you like an employee. I've had clients successfully navigate this by proposing what I call the "knowledge acquisition alternative" - they offer to ensure they have the necessary information to complete the work through independent research, vendor documentation, or a brief technical consultation, rather than attending standardized employee training. The key is documentation. Whatever you decide, make sure you have written communication about how this was resolved. If they insist on mandatory training despite reasonable alternatives, that becomes important evidence of the true nature of your working relationship. And definitely keep records of how your other client relationships differ - the IRS loves comparative analysis when determining worker status. Bottom line: trust your instincts here. The fact that this feels different from your other contractor relationships is probably because it IS different, and not in a good way from a classification standpoint.

I've been through several classification reviews with the IRS and can tell you that this training requirement is a significant red flag. What makes it particularly problematic is the mandatory nature - true independent contractors typically have the freedom to determine how they acquire necessary skills and knowledge. The fact that you're questioning this shows good instincts. In legitimate contractor relationships, clients focus on outcomes and deliverables, not on controlling your methods or requiring participation in their internal processes. When companies start dictating training attendance, it suggests they view you as someone they can direct and control, which is fundamentally different from purchasing your services. I'd recommend documenting this entire situation carefully and consider filing Form SS-8 with the IRS to get an official determination on your worker status if this client continues to blur the lines. The training requirement alone might not trigger reclassification, but it's often the first in a series of increasingly employee-like controls. One approach that's worked for others is to reframe the conversation around business partnership: "I want to ensure I have all the information needed to deliver exceptional results. As your contracted specialist, I can either attend your training program at my standard rate, or I can review the materials independently and schedule a focused consultation to address any technical questions. Which approach would be more cost-effective for this project?" This gives them options while maintaining your independent status and making the cost implications clear.