Not Getting Paid

[Blackcat31]

I would call and find out. I personally would not read that as 30 consecutive days. If they wanted it to be consecutive then saying consecutive would be much easier. The way that is written says to me any days adding up to 30 within a year long period.

Also, if you do get licensed you may find you'll need to start charging for services. Often times there are trainings and other hoops to jump through. That might be more of a headache than necessary if you are doing this for free.

I'm not against licensing, just make sure you aren't taking on all of this headache without compensation.

Kelly

Thats what I thought too but then most babysitters would be in violation as they can easily care for a child 30 days out of an entire year with 365 days.. Kwim?

[SquirrellyMama]

Thats what I thought too but then most babysitters would be in violation as they can easily care for a child 30 days out of an entire year with 365 days.. Kwim?

I understand what you are saying. I was thinking maybe she didn't babysit for more than 30 days. Getting licensed and not paid seems like a lot of unnecessary work. All those hoops and inspections for nothing.

Kelly

[Blackcat31]

I understand what you are saying. I was thinking maybe she didn't babysit for more than 30 days. Getting licensed and not paid seems like a lot of unnecessary work. All those hoops and inspections for nothing.

Kelly

I wonder if Tom Copeland would have an answer for this... ?

I see what you are saying and totally agree but I wonder if there are other requirements then?

It would just seem easy then for someone to let's say open a child care and accept trades or other bartering type agreements instead of money and avoid having to be licensed or pay taxes kwim?

I'll move the original question over to the tax area of the forum and see if Tom can add more or have a definite answer. I'm sure he'll know as he is also from MN so....

[SquirrellyMama]

I wonder if Tom Copeland would have an answer for this... ?

I see what you are saying and totally agree but I wonder if there are other requirements then?

It would just seem easy then for someone to let's say open a child care and accept trades or other bartering type agreements instead of money and avoid having to be licensed or pay taxes kwim?

I'll move the original question over to the tax area of the forum and see if Tom can add more or have a definite answer. I'm sure he'll know as he is also from MN so....

I hadn't thought about bartering and trading to not pay taxes. The rule makes a little more sense then.

Kelly

[Play Care]

A few years ago in Wisconsin (I believe, maybe Heidi remembers this? Or another Wisconsin provider?) a woman who was a SAHM was allowing some of her neighbors kids to wait at her home in the AM's before school and she made sure they got on the bus. There was no money exchanging hands and I do not believe the kids went to her home in the afternoon. She was simply a place for kids to hang out (supervised) in the AM so some of her neighbors could get to work on time.

She was issues a cease and desist letter by the state. I believe they said it didn't matter that she wasn't being paid. Supervising the kids on a daily basis constituted day care and she was operating an illegal day care and would be fined some outrageous fee per day if she continued. There was an outcry but I'm not sure how it every turned out.

Point being is that I'm not sure saying "but I don't get money" is enough.

[Unregistered]

As to bartering, you are still required to pay taxes on the value received.
How anyone would find out is another deal, but it wouldn't be smart to use it as a defense if found out.

[Blackcat31]

Okay, here is what Tom Copeland said about this situation:

The Minnesota rule says that daycare is "care of a child in a residence outside the child's own home for gain or otherwise, on a regular basis, for any part of a 24 hour day."

So, it looks like a provider would still need to be licensed even if she wasn't paid.