David Green642 said:I've had audits based on increased workload before, and nobody ever gave me grief about it. It's a gray area, honestly. In my view, you just need to back up that reason with actual accounting docs—something showing a spike in revenue or even just expenses, you know?
Otherwise, how is an inspector supposed to dispute anything just because they have a hunch? That's just pointless...
Their official response was basically: "If your business volume has increased, then hire someone on a permanent contract. If things slow down later, you can just lay them off due to downsizing."
Can you believe that? Honestly, it feels like every inspector in the US just makes up their own rules as they go. Because if you look at audits for other companies, nothing is ever questioned, even when the documentation is identical to what these people were penalized for.
These guys were hit with a fine of $1667, but the court actually reduced it to $533 because it was a first-time offense, they're a major corporation, they've always been compliant, and they pay everything on time. So, the court showed some leniency.
I totally get where you're coming from, but in the real world, things work a bit differently.