Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115 (2026)

Employment - Federal Unemployment Tax Act

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) "Employment", subject to other provisions of this subsection (1), includes any service performed prior to January 1, 1972, which was employment as defined in this subsection (1) prior to such date and service performed after December 31, 1971, by an employee as defined in section 3306 (i) of the "Federal Unemployment Tax Act" and any service performed after December 31, 1977, by an employee, as defined in subsection (o) of section 3306 of the "Federal Unemployment Tax Act", including service in interstate commerce. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection (1) and notwithstanding the provisions of section 8-80-101, service performed by an individual for another shall be deemed to be employment, irrespective of whether the common-law relationship of master and servant exists, unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the division that such individual is free from control and direction in the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and such individual is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service performed. For purposes of this section, the degree of control exercised by the person for whom the service is performed over the performance of the service or over the individual performing the service, if exercised pursuant to the requirements of any state or federal statute or regulation, shall not be considered. (c) To evidence that such individual is engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business and is free from control and direction in the performance of the service, the individual and the person for whom services are performed may either show by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of this subsection (1) have been satisfied, or they may demonstrate in a written document, signed by both parties, that the person for whom services are performed does not: (I) Require the individual to work exclusively for the person for whom services are performed; except that the individual may choose to work exclusively for the said person for a finite period of time specified in the document; (II) Establish a quality standard for the individual; except that such person can provide plans and specifications regarding the work but cannot oversee the actual work or instruct the individual as to how the work will be performed; (III) Pay a salary or hourly rate but rather a fixed or contract rate; (IV) Terminate the work during the contract period unless the individual violates the terms of the contract or fails to produce a result that meets the specifications of the contract; (V) Provide more than minimal training for the individual; (VI) Provide tools or benefits to the individual; except that materials and equipment may be supplied; (VII) Dictate the time of performance; except that a completion schedule and a range of mutually agreeable work hours may be established; (VIII) Pay the individual personally but rather makes checks payable to the trade or business name of the individual; and (IX) Combine his business operations in any way with the individual's business, but instead maintains such operations as separate and distinct. (d) A document may satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c) of this subsection (1) if such document demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of such factors listed in subparagraphs (I) to (IX) of paragraph (c) of this subsection (1) as are appropriate to the parties' situation. (2) Where the parties use a written document pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, such document may be the contract for performance of service or a separate document. Such document shall create a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties, where such document contains a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other provisions in the document or in bold-faced or underlined type, that the independent contractor is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits unless unemployment compensation coverage is provided by the independent contractor or some other entity, and that the independent contractor is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on any moneys paid pursuant to the contract relationship. (3) Where the parties use a written document pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, and one of the parties is a professional whose license to practice a particular occupation under the laws of the state of Colorado requires such professional to exercise a supervisory function with regard to an entire project, such supervisory role shall not affect such professional's status as part of the independent contractor relationship. (4) To improve the process of determining the classification of an individual for purposes of this section, including any audits performed pursuant to section 8-72-107, the department shall: (a) Develop guidance for employers on the factors specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section; (b) Clarify the process by which an employer or individual may submit further information in response to a determination by the department and prior to an appeal; (c) Establish an individual to serve as a resource for employers by providing guidance on: (I) The proper classification of workers; (II) Audit findings; and (III) Options for curing or appealing an audit; (d) Establish internal methods to improve the consistency among auditors; and (e) Establish an independent review of a portion of audit and appeal results at least twice a year to monitor trends and make improvements to the audit process.

Source: L. 90: Entire section added, p. 592, § 3, effective April 3; entire section R&RE, p. 1766, § 10, effective June 8. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 1366, § 1, effective May 18; entire section amended, p. 1343, § 1, effective June 5. L. 2016: (4) added, (SB 16-179), ch. 275, p. 1138, § 2, effective August 10.

Editor's note: Amendments to this section by House Bill 91-1279 and Senate Bill 91- 238 were harmonized.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 16-179, see section 1 of chapter 275, Session Laws of Colorado 2016.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Colo. Custom Maid, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2019 CO 43 (Colo. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colo. Custom Maid, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2019 CO 43 (Colo. 2019). · cites it 24× “A hearing officer reversed the Division's decision, concluding that CCM had proven, as required by section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), that the cleaners were free from CCM's control and direction and that they customarily engaged in an independent business of providing…”
Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 35× “In July 2007, a deputy issued a decision concluding that under section 8-70-115, C.R.S.2008, Lucero and other similarly situated workers were engaged in "employment" with Long View.”
Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 325 P.3d 560 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 30× “Standard of Review 19 The employer has the burden of proving that the putative employee is an independent contractor under section 8-70-115. Long View Sys. Corp. USA v.”
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 30× “Smith (claimant), constituted covered "employment" for such tax purposes under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), pursuant to section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2010. We affirm.”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 21× “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Home Health Care Professionals v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Emp., 937 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 23× “(emphasis supplied) Section 8-70-115(2) says that: (2) [If such a document is used, it] shall create a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties, where such document contains a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other…”
Carpet Exch. of Denver, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 859 P.2d 278 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 24× “Section 8-70-115(1)[, C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.”
Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 129 P.3d 1094 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 23× “He found that this contract did not satisfy the criteria set forth in § 8-70-115, C.R.S.2005, and thus did not produce a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship.”
Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 222 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 21× “Legal Framework 17 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2011, services performed by a worker for another "shall be deemed" to be covered "employment" for unemployment tax lability purposes, unless the putative employer proves both that (1) the individual "is free from control and…”
Windows v. ICAO, 2020 COA 9 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12× “Instead, the supreme court held that nine factors enumerated in section 8-70-115 of CESA — which are identical to the nine criteria set out in section 8-40-202(2)(b)(II) of the WCA — are “indicative of what the General Assembly thought are important distinctions between…”
Barge v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 905 P.2d 25 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “Barge contends that there was sufficient evidence introduced at the hearing to establish that Dufort and other similarly-situated musicians were independent contractors pursuant to § 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.).”
Hoskins v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 327 P.3d 356 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “2018 ("Employment" has the meaning set forth in sections 8-70-115 to - 125, C.R.S.2013). But, the Act specifically excludes from the definition of "employment .”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1) — 2 cases
Carpet Exch. of Denver, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 859 P.2d 278 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 8-70-115(1)[, C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.”
W. Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 325 P.3d 550 (Colo. 2014).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(b) — 16 cases
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “Smith (claimant), constituted covered "employment" for such tax purposes under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), pursuant to section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2010. We affirm.”
Colo. Custom Maid, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2019 CO 43 (Colo. 2019). “A hearing officer reversed the Division's decision, concluding that CCM had proven, as required by section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), that the cleaners were free from CCM's control and direction and that they customarily engaged in an independent business of providing…”
Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “In July 2007, a deputy issued a decision concluding that under section 8-70-115, C.R.S.2008, Lucero and other similarly situated workers were engaged in "employment" with Long View.”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 325 P.3d 560 (Colo. 2014). “Standard of Review 19 The employer has the burden of proving that the putative employee is an independent contractor under section 8-70-115. Long View Sys. Corp. USA v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c) — 9 cases
Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Softrock Geological Servs., Inc., 325 P.3d 560 (Colo. 2014). “Standard of Review 19 The employer has the burden of proving that the putative employee is an independent contractor under section 8-70-115. Long View Sys. Corp. USA v.”
Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “In July 2007, a deputy issued a decision concluding that under section 8-70-115, C.R.S.2008, Lucero and other similarly situated workers were engaged in "employment" with Long View.”
Colo. Custom Maid, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2019 CO 43 (Colo. 2019). “A hearing officer reversed the Division's decision, concluding that CCM had proven, as required by section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), that the cleaners were free from CCM's control and direction and that they customarily engaged in an independent business of providing…”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 222 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “Legal Framework 17 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2011, services performed by a worker for another "shall be deemed" to be covered "employment" for unemployment tax lability purposes, unless the putative employer proves both that (1) the individual "is free from control and…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(1) — 1 case
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(I) — 5 cases
Colo. Custom Maid, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2019 CO 43 (Colo. 2019). “A hearing officer reversed the Division's decision, concluding that CCM had proven, as required by section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), that the cleaners were free from CCM's control and direction and that they customarily engaged in an independent business of providing…”
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “Smith (claimant), constituted covered "employment" for such tax purposes under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), pursuant to section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2010. We affirm.”
Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “In July 2007, a deputy issued a decision concluding that under section 8-70-115, C.R.S.2008, Lucero and other similarly situated workers were engaged in "employment" with Long View.”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 222 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “Legal Framework 17 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2011, services performed by a worker for another "shall be deemed" to be covered "employment" for unemployment tax lability purposes, unless the putative employer proves both that (1) the individual "is free from control and…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(III) — 1 case
Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “In July 2007, a deputy issued a decision concluding that under section 8-70-115, C.R.S.2008, Lucero and other similarly situated workers were engaged in "employment" with Long View.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(IV) — 1 case
W. Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(IX) — 1 case
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(V) — 1 case
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(c)(VI) — 1 case
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(1)(d) — 3 cases
Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “In July 2007, a deputy issued a decision concluding that under section 8-70-115, C.R.S.2008, Lucero and other similarly situated workers were engaged in "employment" with Long View.”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Softrock Geological Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 222 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “Legal Framework 17 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S.2011, services performed by a worker for another "shall be deemed" to be covered "employment" for unemployment tax lability purposes, unless the putative employer proves both that (1) the individual "is free from control and…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(2) — 5 cases
Home Health Care Professionals v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Emp., 937 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “(emphasis supplied) Section 8-70-115(2) says that: (2) [If such a document is used, it] shall create a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties, where such document contains a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other…”
Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 129 P.3d 1094 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “He found that this contract did not satisfy the criteria set forth in § 8-70-115, C.R.S.2005, and thus did not produce a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship.”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Barge v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 905 P.2d 25 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Barge contends that there was sufficient evidence introduced at the hearing to establish that Dufort and other similarly-situated musicians were independent contractors pursuant to § 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.).”
W. Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(l)(b) — 3 cases
Home Health Care Professionals v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Emp., 937 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “(emphasis supplied) Section 8-70-115(2) says that: (2) [If such a document is used, it] shall create a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties, where such document contains a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other…”
Carpet Exch. of Denver, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 859 P.2d 278 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 8-70-115(1)[, C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.”
Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 129 P.3d 1094 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “He found that this contract did not satisfy the criteria set forth in § 8-70-115, C.R.S.2005, and thus did not produce a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(l)(c) — 3 cases
Home Health Care Professionals v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Emp., 937 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “(emphasis supplied) Section 8-70-115(2) says that: (2) [If such a document is used, it] shall create a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties, where such document contains a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other…”
Visible Voices, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 328 P.3d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “General Legal Standards 1 10 Under section 8-70-115(1)(b), C.R.S. 2018, services performed by an individual for another "shall be deemed" covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes, unless the putative employer demonstrates both that (1) the individual "is free…”
Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 129 P.3d 1094 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “He found that this contract did not satisfy the criteria set forth in § 8-70-115, C.R.S.2005, and thus did not produce a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(l)(d) — 1 case
Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 129 P.3d 1094 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “He found that this contract did not satisfy the criteria set forth in § 8-70-115, C.R.S.2005, and thus did not produce a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(l)(e) — 2 cases
Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 129 P.3d 1094 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “He found that this contract did not satisfy the criteria set forth in § 8-70-115, C.R.S.2005, and thus did not produce a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship.”
Home Health Care Professionals v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Emp., 937 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “(emphasis supplied) Section 8-70-115(2) says that: (2) [If such a document is used, it] shall create a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties, where such document contains a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.