Employees vs Independent Contractors (Part Two of Two)

‍

Join the discussion on Facebook!

Transcript

Jonathan:

Hey everybody, Jonathan checking in here. Just so you know this is a two part episode, this is the second part of the episode. So if you've not listened to the first part yet you want to go back and listen to it in the prior weeks, we should have it labeled on the episode title what part one is and part two is. So you should be able to listen to that in the or see that in the title of the episode of this, what episode of episode it is so thanks.

Joseph:

So back to the risk mitigation piece, this is the duck test guys and gals. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck it's probably a duck. And in a lot of these scenarios and situations when you really start digging into it, sure looks like an employee to me and not an independent contractor when we start applying these tests and that kind of thing. So I've not ever seen it go that way. You and I both know and have seen many, many times there's lots of famous cases where somebody that was classified as an independent contractor gets reclassified as an employee. Not that it hadn't happened, but I've not ever seen that happen where somebody was classified as a W2 employee and it went the other way and it became all of a sudden an independent contractor.

Jonathan:

No.

Joseph:

So back to the risk question, every day as a business owner you're taking risks that are out there. What risks are you willing to take and what risks do you want to take?

Jonathan:

Yeah, exactly. And let's talk about what those risks are. Let's say that it does get reclassified from an independent contractor to an employee status. In reality, what's happened is in the past, the independent contractor should have been reporting on their taxes they were being paid as a 1099. And as such been paying the full 15.3% of the FICA taxes, which is 7.65% for the employer side and 7.65% for the employee side of the social security and Medicare. And that's their portion of it up to the first $120,000 and social security goes away. And then the number maybe a little different this year, but after that it's the 2.9% for the Medicare above that. And they would be responsible that wholly as an independent contractor. If they get reclassified, what happens is the employer then has to pay all those taxes that they didn't pay the 7.65 or the full 15.3% because they hadn't been paying any of it.

Jonathan:

I'm sorry no let me rephrase that. They only have to pay the employer portion the 7.65%, because that was all they were on it for originally. But they also have to pay penalties and interest from the time it was originally due. Penalties and interest on payroll taxes are something you don't want to mess with because it goes up fast and it compounds and it almost... I think it's like you're looking at over a few year period, which it will likely take a few years for this to be caught. You will likely pay more in penalties and interest than you'll pay in actual back taxes. And it's really, really annoying to try and get out of those things. When you're talking about an associate on the first $120,000 say you pay them 150, you're like at probably 10, $15,000 over a three-year period, $45,000 in back taxes.

Jonathan:

Add in double that for penalties and interest you got $90,000 all of a sudden for one employee or one person, it's a lot of money if you get it wrong. And then what happens on the employee side, they have to go in and the independent contractor that got reclassified then has to file on minute returns to go and get that money back from the government that they paid in incorrectly because they paid in the employer portion on their side. I'd be really interested in finding out if the employees ever actual... if the government ever actually contacts those independent contractors and said, "Hey, you may have been reclassified as wrong," and actually pays them the money.

Jonathan:

I would hope that'd be automated but you never know with the IRS has. And then everything I've always heard. I've not seen this specifically happen in practice is that the federal government will usually send a letter to the state saying, "Hey, we've reclassified things. But if they catch it on the state level, they don't typically send it to the federal level." That's the risk you're taking and having people be classified incorrectly. So it could be a lot of money if you're paying somebody up to the cap.

Joseph:

So let me ask this Jonathan. I've seen this come through a handful of times. We have somebody that's interviewing to be a chairside assistant. They come in and then they do like let's just say a working interview and they work for eight hours. We pay them 20 bucks an hour or whatever, pick your number. And then all of a sudden we write them a check at the end of the day for 160 bucks. It didn't work out with this individual, we ended up deciding to hire somebody else. So if somebody has 160 bucks that they paid to somebody for a working interview, are they required to send them a 1099 as a contractor.

Jonathan:

Yeah. So if they didn't pay them through W2, then yes, they are required to send a 1099 because they didn't pay them as an employee. The technically correct thing that I believe is technically correct is that that person should have been employee for that day. And you should have withheld the payroll taxes and paid unemployment and all those other things on that person for the day that they were there. But in practice and industry standards, a lot of times those are just paid out of the 1099 because it's simpler to do.

Jonathan:

They don't have to get the payroll company involved, they don't have to fill out the forms, they don't have to worry about the direct deposit slips, they don't have to do all those things that go along with it. But I believe the technically correct thing to do is to pay them as an employee for the working interview. And then assumably if they don't work out, then they'll just get a W2 for 300 bucks or something like that at the end of the year, whatever, 100 bucks, whatever it is. So that's my understanding is yours the same?

Joseph:

I thought there was something about 600 bucks, if you paid somebody less than 600 bucks that you weren't required. I think that going back to our risk of loss, that clinical person that came in for an interview, they don't have any risk of loss for sure. Financial risk of loss that day.

Jonathan:

Yeah. So there definitely is a diminimous role for 1099s if it's less than $600, you pay someone on an annual basis then you're not required to issue them a 1099. But if you're not paying them as an employee then you're by default paying them as a contractor. Which if assumably let's say that day was over $600 in payments for that day then they would be required, it would be a 1099. You can actually issue someone a 1099 if you've paid them less than 600, but you're not required to.

Joseph:

Gotcha.

Jonathan:

I guess that's an important caveat to have. So we've talked about the associate position and we talked about the clinical side, let's talk about a specialist because this is where I find that shade of gray it's a lot darker here whenever you start talking about a specialist that's coming in. So we have people that'll have an endodontist came in, or maybe an orthodontist, or someone coming in, or a surgeon come in sometimes once a week, sometimes once a month, once every other month, once every six months, something like that. They just fill their day up, they work there they get a cut of the production for the day and then they go on their merry way. Whenever we have that situation come up what's your best advice to the person in terms of determining is that person a contractor or are they an employee?

Joseph:

Yeah. Great question. I'd go back to some of the stuff that we've talked about is this person bringing their own staff whenever it comes to the anesthesia, are they using their own tools. Are they using their own anesthesia drugs to put this person under? So I had my wisdom teeth removed a couple of years ago and I didn't ask the question, but since I'm an accountant I'm in the background thinking, "I wonder if this guy's a 1099 or if he's a W2?" And I watched him bring in his own carted tools. I watched him bring in two assistance with him. I watched him pull out his own anesthesia supplies. He didn't reach in the drawer of the main room, the operating room that I was in and pulled materials out of the place that I was at.

Joseph:

He brought his own stuff with him so I think that that those are all different things. And as I got a chance to ask him about how much of this he's doing, he worked out of I think it was probably 20 or 30 offices here in the metroplex that I live in. And this is something that he did one day, like a month at this specific practice. Those to me go back to a walk like a duck, looks like a duck, probably a duck that guy's an independent contractor. He's the one that's doing all of the work. He's the one that's he's out in business for himself and he's got all of this risk of loss that comes along with it. What are your thoughts?

Jonathan:

I agree with that. I agree with that. The only thing that gives me a little bit of pause is the Uber case. And the reason is is because these are not Uber cars that these drivers are driving it's their vehicle. They're getting gas paid for and things like that. But I think the reason they're getting the gas paid for, I think that the pay them based off of the rate of how many miles their driving, it's a mileage rate, they get reimbursed for something like that. Which I think I haven't looked into the case very much because it doesn't have anything to do with the industry, so I just read the headlines. But my guess is that they're getting Uber on the fact that their payment to those people covers the risk of loss.

Jonathan:

It probably gives them some type of money for mileage, probably gives them some type of money for insurance, probably gives them some type of mileage for maybe even cell coverage or phone coverage or something like that. It gives them the app, it gives them the control over everything else. Because if you think about it, a lot of those drivers are also like Lyft drivers and local car service drivers that are on apps, they're not exclusive, they typically aren't, they do it for all the apps. And they basically just jump through whichever one pays them the most at that moment in time to which one they're going to be taking on the call for. So my thought with that is yes it sounds like an independent contractor.

Jonathan:

I think that the fact pattern aligns with them being an independent contractor, but I think this is a situation where the facts are important, but also the way that they're paid is important. Because I think that that's probably how Uber got caught was that they were giving them money based off of these rates built in to how much they were paying people for all these different things, so if they get in a car wreck or something like that more than likely Uber would probably be the person in trouble with that because the person's not going to sue the other person. They're going to sue Uber if something like that happens. And that could have been the only fact pattern that the government needed to say, "Hey, that risk of loss is on the company and on the employee," because the person's not probably going to sue the person, they're going to to sue the big company even if it was employee's fault because they were offering under their core of the other company.

Jonathan:

So it's an interesting question. I think that the most logical answer is to have them be the independent contractor. But I think that if you were to pay that person... I'm going to pay you 70% of production because you're doing all the stuff and that just covers everything that you're... that should cover your staff, that should cover your insurance, that should cover all the risks that you're taking your travel costs and things like that. If you're paying all that through that payment I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think that could be a precedent on our dental community that if they take the same findings that they took in the Uber case that that could be reclassified as an employee, which would be bad for a lot of people. But it probably wouldn't make a whole lot of difference because it'd be so specific of a situation that happens rarely but potentially could be.

Jonathan:

So the reason we're talking about this is just for education purposes and just kind of how it is. There are lots of shades of gray in this, but I think ultimately they probably would have been an independent contractor as well. So anyway, so that's the specialist side and we get a lot of questions on that. So on that one the way they wish their pay and everything like that does make a difference as well in pieces. The last situation that we want to cover that is very common is for hygienists. So hygienist is a very special breed of question. And Joseph, why don't you take this one? We were just talking about beforehand some situations we've seen that have came up with hygienists specifically.

Joseph:

Yeah. So I had a dentist call me and say, "Hey, I saw on Facebook the other day that a hygienist came out and said, if a dentist tries to issue you a 1099, you tell him that's illegal," and all of this different stuff. And anyways I was talking to our client and I said, "Well, I don't really like to use the term illegal. I don't think that that's a term we need to be using to discuss this, because there are a lot of nuances in this individual situation and all of these different pieces that go along." And I'm going to go back and I'm going to apply these different tests that the IRS gives us that are out there with the hygienists. Is this somebody that shows up that sees your patients on your schedule with your tools on your time and they get paid a percentage of that, boy, that shirt doesn't sound like an independent contractor to me.

Joseph:

Do they only work at your place? Do they have their own company? Do they have all of these other pieces? Is there any real control that they have inside of the schedule? Do they set their own schedule? One of the things that the longer that I've spent in dentistry and the more we dig into these individual situations, it's pretty rare that a hygienist is going to qualify as an independent contractor. Would you say that that's accurate Jonathan? It's probably one of the bigger mistakes I see.

Jonathan:

Honestly, I think this is all an industry issue. I think what happened was... So young business owners today don't understand the pain that payroll was 10 years ago. In the early 2000s to 2010, prior to that payroll was awful. It was really hard to do... It's not difficult to do, it was just really tedious tod do. There's lots of little things you had to do. And I think that the reason this got started was that people just didn't want to deal with having to have an employee for someone who was in there once a week or once every other week or once a month or whatever it is like, "Oh yeah, we need an independent contractor because my CPA says they don't want to deal with payroll is basically what usually would happen I think."

Jonathan:

And as time has gone on payroll has gotten simpler and simpler. I think that the excuse turned into some type of logical fallacy got created that, "Well, they are independent contractors because they only here every once in a while," which has no bearing over the control systems that the IRS looks at. You're not going to go to tax jail if you pay a hygienist an independent contractor wage, but you might get a penalty and interest down the line. And if you issue a 1099 to someone it's because you paid them as a contractor and they accepted payment for that. And so a 1099 is an issuance of just notice that you paid someone in a certain manner. It's not stating that all of a sudden that they were a contractor where there weren't before.

Jonathan:

You paid them. Okay, fine they want to be an employee, "Okay, cool give us our money back. We paid you $800 and 200 of that would have been payroll taxes. So you want to be employee, okay, fine, be an employee, but here's how much you owe us if that's the case." And so unfortunately the employee probably won't come up with the $200. And unfortunately, if they do raise a stink about it, you're probably going to be the one that's going to get in trouble for it. And when I say trouble you may have to pay penalties and interest and things like that, and have to pay a payroll company to fix your problem for you. But in general your hygienist is not a contractor it's going to be an employee.

Jonathan:

The only exception to that I can think of is if you had a consultant that happened to be a hygienist as well. And they were literally just doing consulting on maybe efficiencies or something like that. And to be specific about this there are some states that I think I was mentioning to you Joseph is I believe North Carolina has said that if you were paying your hygienists as contractors then you are wrong. It doesn't matter any of the fact patterns if you pay a hygienist a 1099 contractor payment, you are wrong and don't do it again or else... I think that they've even threatened suspending licenses over this, dental licenses over this. So there are some states that are... I think California may be the same as well.

Jonathan:

There are some states that are very specific about this. And again, the reason that I believe this is the case is because the governments are trying to protect the employees of being taken advantage of. Or unscrupulous business people that are just trying to save a buck on the unemployment side of things and not having to pay the 7.65%. Maybe also getting away from having to pay some benefits that maybe the independent contractors wouldn't get compared to what the employees would get. Even though in today's day and age a lot of the benefits that are outlined in there, a lot of them are actually covering independent contractors too it's just that people don't realize it and they're having URSA violations but that's a whole nother topic. That's kind of my thought on it anything you want to add in terms of the hygienist question?

Joseph:

Not really. I'm a CPA we're going to tend to be pretty conservative and we're going to tend to probably err on the side of caution. So when you look at the risk reward equation on a lot of this stuff, it's a whole lot less risk to classify these folks that are coming in as W2 employees. Put them on payroll, they come on, they come off as easy as these payroll providers make it now to bring people on and off. It's one of those things like is the juice worth the squeeze. Is it worth it to have all of these independent contractors that you... Yeah, you save the self-employment tax on it, it's on them and that kind of thing. But a year later, two years later, because that's when these things are going to get looked at.

Joseph:

They're not going to look at who you paid an independent contractor last month and say, "You owe 7.65." It's going to be two, three, five years later it's going to come back and look at all your stuff and make those determinations. And at that point as you mentioned, a lot of times the penalties and interest can even be more than the actual tax itself.

Jonathan:

Yeah. Other big misconceptions I'd like to clear up before anyone questions it. Number one, you can't contract away employee or employer independent contractor status. It's like just because you had a contract with someone saying, "Hey, you're a contractor," does not mean that person's a contractor. I hate the word contract is included in contractor because it makes me sound like I'm making a contract with the contract, with the contract and then I'm going to make a contradiction when it's a contract. So the contract agreement that you make with this contractor can not define what they are and what they are not, it's the fact pattern that creates what they are, not a piece of paper that you both signed it doesn't make a difference. That's a big one.

Jonathan:

So if you're out there saying, "Well, I'm going to have him sign a piece of paper saying their a contractor." If there's a seven part test and they're trying to get you to pass every seven parts, you might get a 0.1 answer to one of the tasks if that happens because you both agreed to it but I highly doubt it. Another big misconception is that the employer gets to be the deciding factor on it. Technically yes the employer is the person who decides, "I'm going to pay you this way or that way." But ultimately the government could have something to say about it.

Jonathan:

If you are someone who is going to be the person providing these services and you feel like you're being improperly classified Joseph what is your answer to the person that says like, "Hey, they're wanting to hire me, but they want to pay me as an independent contractor. I listened to this podcast with like these two really handsome CPAs and they said that wasn't right. What do I do?" What would your advice to that person be?"

Joseph:

That's a good one certainly as somebody coming on you want to be excited about the place you work. You want to establish a good relationship. I would hope that through the interview process that you've gotten a chance to establish some rapport with the individual owner of the business. First thing I would do is just have an open conversation about it and just say, "Hey I know that you said that you want to pay me as a 1099, I got a chance to look at the test for the IRS," maybe pull out source documents to say, "this right here says very clearly that I'm not an independent contractor, that I'm a W2 employee that that would be my preference." I had somebody tell me one time whenever I was looking at the statutes or whatever they said.

Joseph:

I said, "Well, I think that this probably should be done this way, because this is what the law says." And he looked at me and he goes, "Joe, it's hard to disagree when you have the law in front of you, or whenever we're talking about it being pretty specific and being done the right way." So I'd have an open conversation about it. I'm not one that likes to start using threats and stuff like that, that's not the kind of relationship that you want to have with your employer. I do want to have an open honest conversation. I'd talk to your CPA about it and get your CPA's take on it and then see if you can come to an agreement. And if not if you come across a business owner that's so rigid in the way that they're thinking and they won't have, engage in any conversation, what kind of precedent does that set for the time that you're going to work for them?

Joseph:

We can't sit down as a reasonable human beings and have a reasonable discourse and conversation. How's that going to do whenever they're looking over my shoulder and evaluating the dentistry I'm performing, or the way that I do chairside and the way that I talk to the staff. Is this going to be a my way or the highway person? I think probably most of our listeners can say that they probably have worked for somebody that says that it's my way or the highway, and that probably wasn't a very pleasant experience. So that's my thing I'm about open lines of communication. What would your thoughts be just in addition to that or also along those lines Jonathan.

Jonathan:

Number one is that it never hurts to ask if you have some type of documents. The unfortunate truth is that they're probably not doing that just because, they're probably doing because they've done it in the past with other people and they thought that that was the right thing to do. Or, two they could even be receiving bad advice. They could be receiving someone telling them that that's what they're supposed to be doing. And there's a lot of gray areas in this. And so they say, "Well, it's a gray area, I'm going to pick the area that is most convenient to me." And they may even see it as a win for you. I've heard that a lot as someone trying to convince the person to say, "Hey, you should take this as a contractor, because if you do that then you can take all these write-offs that wouldn't normally be able to take," which is actually true now, because you're not allowed to take miscellaneous deductions subject to the 2% rule, which are things like non-reimbursed employee expenses, which you could about four years ago but now you can't.

Jonathan:

So you do get some deductions if you're going to be a contractor versus if you would be as an employee, but you also typically aren't eligible for as many benefits, which also can be expensive and cost you things there. So my best advice to that person is really thinking long and hard how much you want this position. This is one of those us as CPAs our best advice is probably to... Our best advice is always to follow the rules and to do what you're supposed to do. But in reality, if you're talking about a position that you really want and it's a good paying position, and it's like this is your livelihood and this is what we're to do, you're probably not going to be able to punch up. You're probably just going to get punched down in that situation.

Jonathan:

Now, is that right? Is that wrong? If it's wrong then the only real recourse you can is to take the independent contractor pay if you want that position. And then at some point in time maybe you can raise a stink about it to a governmental agency if you wanted to, I don't think that's probably the best idea for a number of different reasons but that may ultimately be your only choice. Another thing that comes up a lot is, "They're giving me two offers," which I feel is really peculiar but it happens very often. "You can either be an independent contractor at this rate or you can be an employee at this rate, which one should I choose?" That's not uncommon for that to happen. Just so you know we're getting a little bit long in the episode, what I would say to do in that situation is to take the full offers and compare them because usually there's differences.

Jonathan:

It's usually not like, "Hey, do you want to be one of these or the other? Because if you're the independent contractor you can take these write-offs, but if you're an employee you'll get, I don't know, your healthcare coverage or something like that." So those are two very different offers you got to calculate out the benefit of both of those a little bit separately. Maybe that's a good one for your CPA to help you out with. That's my general advice to those people. But again to the misconceptions, the employer doesn't technically dictate it if you're going to be employee going in let's reverse that. Let's say that you're about to hire your first associate and they're like, "I only want to be an independent contractor." What is your advice to that person to that employer Joseph?

Joseph:

I don't know my way or the highway just never works for me. I just really don't like that approach. I like discussion and I like having some dialogue back and forth, I'd pull out the rules and say here's what the rules are. How can we make this happen one way or the other.

Jonathan:

"All my friends are being paid as independent contractors."

Joseph:

Yeah. I'd say that's a tough one. Again, if somebody comes in and says, "My way or the highway and we're not having a discussion about it," what kind of precedent does that set? There's a lot that I've read over the years about the concept of having your employees hold you hostage as a business owner, "Do what I say or I quit." And I think that that's just a very poor way of managing up or managing down. It's kind of the same as if your boss says, "Do what I say or you're fired." What kind of relationship is that for you to be spending all of your working hours working in that kind of, "Do what I say or I quit," or, "do what I say or you're fired." That just goes against my grain. Maybe there's some people that are out there that are going to listen to it and say, "Oh, I love it when people tell me what to do and don't give me options." I'd probably say that that's not the majority of the people that want to be practice owners.

Jonathan:

Yeah. And honestly, if I were to hire somebody and they were like, "Hey, can I be a paid as an independent contractor instead of as an employee?" I would say no very quickly unless it was a very specific circumstance. But for you guys that are listening, the risk of in that is almost always on the employer not the employee. If it gets reclassified it's only going to be the person providing the service in the long run. You can't flip it around and it end up being better for you. So if you were to say, "Okay, sure." Joseph comes to me and says, "Hey, I want to be paid as independent contractor." I'll say, "Okay, sure, Joseph, go ahead. I'll pay you as independent contractor."

Jonathan:

What could happen three years down the line is we break out and we decide that it's not going to fit anymore. You go your own way, I go my own way. Maybe you decide to be a unscrupulous person and say, "You know what, I know I was getting paid as an independent contractor when I shouldn't have, so I'm going to report him to the IRS and see if I can get my back taxes paid back for me. Get all my refunds back now." You're probably going to do that, just to be clear about it. And that's only going to affect me, it's not going to affect you. So reverse that and say that three years go by, we break up you decide you're not going to work for me anymore. I can't do anything, there's no better situation for me.

Jonathan:

It's just that the engagement ends and I can't flip the script and say, "Well, no, he was an employee I want to pay my back taxes." It doesn't work that way, so just be aware of that if you're in that situation. If they're saying they want to be paid as independent contractor, you're taking on risk by doing that, they are not. And so in those types of situations, you have to be willing to say, "No, this isn't the right thing to do and I'm not going to do it." Even though it could cost me this potentially a great associate. If that's the sticking point of why they don't want to be your associate then they can by Felicia.

Jonathan:

At that point just walk them out the door. That's a small enough sticking point that they shouldn't be.... That's a giant red flag and you'll probably end up saving yourself money and heartache in the long run. So that's an important thing to remember. So again those big misconceptions are one you can't contract us away. Two is the employer doesn't just make the decision, which I hope we've covered in detail in the conversation. And three is the employee or the service provider doesn't dictate that either. Are there any other misconceptions that you can think of in terms of this Joseph.

Joseph:

I'll just pay him as a contractor, there's no rules about it. That's the big thing, I'll just write them check. I'll write to him as a business owner, I'll just call him a contractor.

Jonathan:

As long I gave him a 1099, as long as I gave him a 1099 at the end of the year they're a contractor. Hopefully we've done a good job of describing the problem and giving you the solution in this situation of how to do it always... And check with your CPA. The harder burden on this one is to try and make someone a contractor when they're probably an employee. I think most people know when they're doing that. And they're just trying to make it simpler where they don't have to pay the unemployment taxes and get out of the 7.65% employer taxes. If that's the case if you look into your soul of souls and decide that's what your trying to do. Just pay the person as an employee, eat the 7.65% and hopefully if they're a good employee... But if you're one of those more gray cases then that's a really good question, involve your CPA with the conversation and be aware of it so that you can start building a body of proof if it does ever get questioned.

Jonathan:

Because again, the only person taking a risk in this relationship is the employer, not the contractor slash employee. It can only end up helping that person where it could end up hurting you a lot. This has been our episode about independent contractors and employees. We may split this one up into two episodes. So if you hear this on the second episode then hope that you enjoy the conversation. As always go to the Facebook group talk to us about if you've ever been paid as an employer or employee or an independent contractor and you thought it wasn't right and why it wasn't right. Go talk to other people, tell your stories and engage in conversations there. You can go to the Facebook group just search for Tooth and Coin Podcast on Facebook and click on join the group and we'll see you there. Until next time, see you.

Joseph:

Bye guys.

Jonathan:

That's it for today guys. I hope you enjoyed this episode of the Tooth and Coin Podcast. If you are going to be a practice owner or a new practice owner and your interested in CPA services, head on over to toothandcoin.com where can check out more about our CPA services. We help out around 250 offices around the country and would love to be able to have the discussion about how we could help your new practice. We do specialize in new practice owners, so people that are about to be an owner of a practice they're acquiring, about to be an owner of a practice they're starting up, or has become an owner in the past five years that is our specialty.

Jonathan:

And we'd love to be able to talk to you about how we can help you in your services with your tax and accounting services. And if you enjoy today's episode again go to the Facebook group. Talk to us about what we've talked about, join in on the discussion and let's create an environment where we can talk about some of these things so that we can all help each other get through these things together so that this adventure of business ownership is more fun, more productive, and better in the longterm. Lastly, if you want access to those resources that we're currently building, just text the word Tooth and Coin too 33444. That's Tooth and Coin, no spaces, T-O-O-T-H-A-N-D-C-O-I-N to 33444. Apply through email address, we'll send you the instructions in the Facebook group. We'll send you the resources when they're available and we will see you next week.

‍