# Business Licenses For Some SF Uber And Lyft Drivers Cost Hundreds More Than Expected



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

http://sfist.com/2016/04/27/business_licenses_for_some_sf_uber_1.php

Many of the 37,000 or so San Francisco Uber and Lyft drivers who learned last week that they were required to have a business license to ply their trade in the city have another shock in store when they go to comply with the regulations, as they're also getting hit with hundreds of dollars in penalties and fees.

As reported last week, SF Uber and Lyft drivers got a letter from the city last week telling them that since they're all independent contractors, drivers who work more than seven days a year are legally required to have a San Francisco business license.

As Caleb reported last week, the licenses "cost $91 each, annually, and if every driver were to register - an outcome that is highly unlikely, as enforcement may prove difficult and the number of drivers who currently operate could differ from that 37,000 estimate - the city would generate $3.37 million a year."

It might be time to up that figure, however, as drivers who are heading out to get their licenses are now being told that they're also on the hook for an additional $155 in fees and penalties for every year they worked without the license, CBS 5 reports.

According to driver Michael Sicard, who spoke with CBS 5, "Uber and Lyft said that this is a new rule," and that he'd "even emailed inquiries asking if there are any other permits or licenses that I'll need and they said no."

Lyft maintains to CBS 5 that the rule is new, saying that "We do not believe the city had made a decision about how to treat ride-sharing drivers for business license purposes until very recently."

But the rule isn't new, City Treasurer Jose Cisneros emphasized last week, saying that "This has been a law that has been around for many years. It's very clearly spelled out on our website - the law here in San Francisco requires you to register your business with the city."

"If they missed that requirement, they are still obligated to do that."

CBS 5 reports that when Sicard "contacted [sic] there Treasurer's office, he was told the only new thing was is that Uber and Lyft finally handed over a list of all their drivers to city officials." "Handed over" might be a bit vague, however, as according to a press release from the Treasurer's Office, it took "two years of enforcement work, including multiple requests for information and subpoenas to get sufficient data about business operations from TNC's domiciled in San Francisco."

According to the Chron, "Lyft said it had complied with the Treasurer's request for tax data on all its drivers in 2014 and 2015, as it was legally obligated to do," and while Uber declined to comment, in an email to drivers they said that "We are also unsure as to how the treasurer's office obtained addresses for Uber drivers and we are looking into how that could have happened."

But however it happened, the genie is out of the bottle now, as even Uber is now saying (via prepared statement) that "As independent contractors, drivers are responsible to follow appropriate local laws." And that includes Sicard, who needs to pony up more than $500 by May 15 to remain in compliance...or not.

"I don't have that money and, without the business license, won't be able to drive to make ends meet," Sicard tells CBS 5. "So my car will get repossessed and I'll go into bankruptcy."

*Previously:* SF's 37,000 Lyft and Uber Drivers Will Be Ordered To Get Business Licenses


----------



## ResIpsaUber (Dec 27, 2015)

KevinH said:


> http://sfist.com/2016/04/27/business_licenses_for_some_sf_uber_1.php
> 
> Many of the 37,000 or so San Francisco Uber and Lyft drivers who learned last week that they were required to have a business license to ply their trade in the city have another shock in store when they go to comply with the regulations, as they're also getting hit with hundreds of dollars in penalties and fees.
> 
> ...


As a practical matter, the total amount of money is not make it or break it for many Uber/Lyft drivers. However, I do believe it is targeted and unfair discrimination. The City, going after 37,000 TNC drivers on this "business theory" kind of overlooks every other independent contractor in this City. Thousands and Thousands of nurses, engineers and technical professionals contract with their companies. I wonder how many of these companies were the recipients of Subpoenas for their contractor information. My guess is this is ZERO. I bet even the City itself hires tons of contractors that it doesn't require business licenses for.


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

ResIpsaUber said:


> As a practical matter, the total amount of money is not make it or break it for many Uber/Lyft drivers. However, I do believe it is targeted and unfair discrimination. The City, going after 37,000 TNC drivers on this "business theory" kind of overlooks every other independent contractor in this City. Thousands and Thousands of nurses, engineers and technical professionals contract with their companies. I wonder how many of these companies were the recipients of Subpoenas for their contractor information. My guess is this is ZERO. I bet even the City itself hires tons of contractors that it doesn't require business licenses for.


That's where you re wrong.

These other people contract with their companies.

You, on the other hand, just contract to use Uber's app, but you run your own business.

Thank Uber for all your messes.

Cities are wisening up and using Uber's shady contract against them.


----------



## ResIpsaUber (Dec 27, 2015)

GooberX said:


> That's where you re wrong.
> These other people contract with their companies.
> You, on the other hand, just contract to use Uber's app, but you run your own business.
> Thank Uber for all your messes.
> Cities are wisening up and using Uber's shady contract against them.


I will assume that you are just giving your armchair opinion on whether the SF Tax Ordinance applies to other contractors and have not actually consulted the SF Business Tax Ordinance as to what extent it applies to other individuals. However, I have tried to read the ordinance and it appears to me to apply to any individual who provides services in the City of SF without much exclusion. Rather, it is quite broad.

SEC. 952.3. GROSS RECEIPTS.
(a) "Gross receipts" means the total amounts received or accrued by a person from whatever source derived, including, but not limited to, amounts derived from sales, services, dealings in property, interest, rent, royalties, dividends, licensing fees, other fees, commissions and distributed amounts from other business entities.​
A contract health care SERVICE provider, like a nurse, is clearly generating gross receipts in the City and would be subject to the ordinance. Similarly, a tech worker who is a contract programmer providing SERVICES, etc. would also be covered. *I would certainly like to hear a learned voice of reason to the contrary as I don't claim any particular expertise in reading complex city ordinances. * The good news for the City is that they are now onto something big! They should be subpoenaing records from all hospitals and tech companies. Instead of just the instant 37,000 new businesses on the roles in SF in the form of TNC drivers, they can get another 200,000 or so other people and start collecting money. This is the start of something big.

Back to my premise, it is a discriminatory policy. I am not contending that TNC drivers should not be regulated on a number of levels, just that the ordinance appears to unfairly target them.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

Not sure about that, and I certainly don't want to parse the San Francisco codes to figure it out, but most business licenses do not apply to employees. You'd also have to look at case law, ie., what courts have said about the city code, not just the code itself.

A bigger issue is that I can see cities throughout the country hopping on this bandwagon if they think they can generate revenue from it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Thank you, Shannon, for selling us out in that settlement, and forcing us to pay these ridiculous licenses in each city going forward instead of Uber having to pay for it when we won the lawsuit that was a slam dunk case. 

Thank you very much.


----------



## airportsedan (Sep 24, 2015)

You are commercial drivers and independent contractors.

I suspect the master plan was to ramp up the driver numbers and then have each state/city make you pay for the following:

1. DMV Commercial Registration Fees
2. Random Drug & Alcohol Tests and Program Fees
3. Commercial Insurance
4. Business License
5. Airport Permit Fees
6. Federal Screening Fees


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

GooberX said:


> That's where you re wrong.
> 
> These other people contract with their companies.
> 
> ...


Good point


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

ResIpsaUber said:


> I will assume that you are just giving your armchair opinion on whether the SF Tax Ordinance applies to other contractors and have not actually consulted the SF Business Tax Ordinance as to what extent it applies to other individuals. However, I have tried to read the ordinance and it appears to me to apply to any individual who provides services in the City of SF without much exclusion. Rather, it is quite broad.
> 
> SEC. 952.3. GROSS RECEIPTS.
> (a) "Gross receipts" means the total amounts received or accrued by a person from whatever source derived, including, but not limited to, amounts derived from sales, services, dealings in property, interest, rent, royalties, dividends, licensing fees, other fees, commissions and distributed amounts from other business entities.​
> ...


Trust me when I tell you I speak from experience.

These people you are talking about provide labor, not a service.

Try thinking about that.

A nurse or a tech providing programming is being compensated for their labor on an IC basis.

Uber drivers are in business and provide transportation services, not their time. They are getting paid per mile.

I venture to say if said nurse contracted to provide Xray services to hospital patients, it'd be a different story.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Thank you, Shannon, for selling us out in that settlement, and forcing us to pay these ridiculous licenses in each city going forward instead of Uber having to pay for it when we won the lawsuit that was a slam dunk case.
> 
> Thank you very much.


i was going to post "Thank you Shannon Liss-Riordan for RUINING and SCREWING OVER the Uber Drivers" but you beat me to it!


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

airportsedan said:


> You are commercial drivers and independent contractors.
> 
> I suspect the master plan was to ramp up the driver numbers and then have each state/city make you pay for the following:
> 
> ...


the taxi industry has been sitting here this whole time saying "All of this is going to catch up to them" what we are finally seeing here is the beginning phases of this, and of course the crying


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

screen shot from the news piece


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

screen shot from the news piece


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

screen shot from the news piece


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Uber drivers work and use the streets of several different cities .. when will the city treasurers in each city wise up and start collecting their fair share

this $544.90 bill could soon easily turn into $2,000 $3,000


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

it turns out Uber driving is actually a commercial activity and not just some fantasy in TechnologyLand that is exempt from all rules and regulations

it's finally time to pay the piper


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Uber drivers need to hurry up and place "PLEASE TIP ME!!!" signs all over the car to help pay for all this

once again Thank You Shannon Liss-Riordan for everything you've done for the Uber... CORPORATION


----------



## SafeT (Nov 23, 2015)

If there are 20 cities around San Fran... Does a driver now need to pay each city a business fee and fines? That would make it 100% impossible and put all drivers in bankruptcy.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

SafeT said:


> If there are 20 cities around San Fran... Does a driver now need to pay each city a business fee and fines? That would make it 100% impossible and put all drivers in bankruptcy.


Uber drivers have been kept "in the dark" as the SF Treasurer spent the last two years gathering all this information on all Uber drivers .. now the plot has been exposed and the city wants a windfall of cash from all Uber drivers . . who knows what the other cities are doing, maybe we can email Uber to find out LOL


----------



## SafeT (Nov 23, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> Uber drivers work and use the streets of several different cities .. when will the city treasurers in each city wise up and start collecting their fair share
> 
> this $544.90 bill could soon easily turn into $2,000 $3,000


Or $30,000 if they all go after drivers. There really is no limit. How many cities are there who need money?


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

SafeT said:


> Or $30,000 if they all go after drivers. There really is no limit. How many cities are there who need money?


drive for Uber and end up bankrupt.. this is not a new concept


----------



## slckofit (Nov 25, 2015)

Just filed for my business license and I owe $584.


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

riChElwAy said:


> Uber drivers work and use the streets of several different cities .. when will the city treasurers in each city wise up and start collecting their fair share
> 
> this $544.90 bill could soon easily turn into $2,000 $3,000


"Los Angeles" is like 30 cities.... Twice that in county.... Dozens more in surrounding counties.

Could get bogged down in SoCal on account of 100+ municipalities each fighting for first dibs to impound our cars

Trying to settle it all thru the legal system might just scuttle the entire state's courts system


----------



## Aztek98 (Jul 23, 2015)

Another hot mess Travis has created.

Lol


----------

