Colorado Independent Contractor Agreement Template
Colorado is the rare state where the formatting of a clause carries legal weight, and where it takes two separate disclosures, not one, to cover both acts.
Find out where you stand in Colorado
What do you need the contractor agreement for?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
An Independent Contractor Agreement is a contract between a business and a self-employed worker covering scope, payment, ownership of the work product, and how the engagement ends. Colorado does not require one, but it rewards a carefully drafted one more directly than most states, because C.R.S. 8-70-115(2) prescribes both the content and the typography of a clause and attaches a legal consequence to getting them right. A document signed by both parties, which may be the service contract or a separate document, creates a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship where it addresses the applicable nine factors in C.R.S. 8-70-115(1)(c) and carries a disclosure, set in type which is larger than the other provisions in the document or in bold-faced or underlined type, about unemployment insurance and income tax. The trap is that this covers unemployment insurance only. Workers' compensation runs on a parallel provision, C.R.S. 8-40-202(2)(b)(IV), which demands a differently worded disclosure and requires every signature to be duly notarized. One clause does not serve both acts. And the presumption shifts the burden of proof; it does not decide whether the worker is genuinely a contractor.
Key Things to Know
- 1
Colorado presumes that service performed by one individual for another is employment. Under C.R.S. 8-70-115(1)(b) the hiring business rebuts that presumption only by showing both that the worker is free from control and direction in performing the service, under the contract and in fact, and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service performed.
- 2
C.R.S. 8-70-115(2) is the drafting provision. A document signed by both parties, which the statute says may be the contract for performance of service or a separate document, creates a rebuttable presumption of independent contractor status where it discloses that the contractor is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits unless coverage is provided by the contractor or some other entity, and that the contractor must pay federal and state income tax on moneys paid under the contract.
- 3
The formatting is part of the requirement, not a suggestion. The disclosure must appear in type which is larger than the other provisions in the document or in bold-faced or underlined type. Those are alternatives, so any one of the three satisfies the statute, but a disclosure buried in the same size and weight as the surrounding boilerplate does not.
- 4
A second, separate clause is needed for workers' compensation, and most templates omit it. C.R.S. 8-40-202(2)(b)(IV) applies the same typography rule but requires the disclosure to reference workers' compensation benefits, and it adds a requirement with no counterpart in the unemployment statute: all signatures on the document must be duly notarized. One disclosure cannot satisfy both acts.
- 5
The disclosure alone is not enough for either act. Regulation 17.1.5 of 7 CCR 1101-2 provides that a written document establishes the presumption only if it includes both the applicable factors listed in C.R.S. 8-70-115(1)(c) and the disclosure in C.R.S. 8-70-115(2). The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment states the same rule: only if both requirements are met will the presumption be created.
- 6
The presumption shifts the burden of proof, it does not settle the classification. The state labor department is explicit that a compliant contract does not mean the worker would ultimately be determined to be an independent contractor, only that the burden of proof would be shifted. Regulation 17.1.5 adds that such an agreement is not, in itself, conclusive. Colorado also treats the employment definition as broader than the common-law master and servant relationship the IRS uses.
- 7
Colorado runs three different tests that are not interchangeable: unemployment insurance under C.R.S. 8-70-115, workers' compensation under C.R.S. 8-40-202(2), and wage and hour under the employee definition at C.R.S. 8-4-101(5). The state labor department describes them as similar but not identical, which means a worker can come out a contractor under one act and an employee under another.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Independent Contractor Agreement in Colorado, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Independent Contractor Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Independent Contractor Agreement guideCustomize your Independent Contractor Agreement Template with DocDraft
Colorado Requirements for Independent Contractor Agreement
To obtain the rebuttable presumption of independent contractor status for unemployment insurance, the signed document must contain a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other provisions in the document or in bold-faced or underlined type, that the contractor is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits unless coverage is provided by the contractor or some other entity, and is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on moneys paid under the contract relationship.
The disclosure works only alongside the statutory factors. The same document must address the applicable factors in C.R.S. 8-70-115(1)(c), which are framed as things the hiring party does not do, and must be signed by both parties. Under C.R.S. 8-70-115(1)(d) only the factors appropriate to the parties' situation need be covered. Regulation 17.1.5 of 7 CCR 1101-2 confirms that both the factors and the disclosure are required.
The workers' compensation presumption is governed by its own provision and needs its own clause. The disclosure must state that the contractor is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits and is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on moneys earned under the contract relationship, in type larger than the other provisions or in bold-faced or underlined type. The unemployment insurance clause does not satisfy this requirement.
Where the parties rely on the workers' compensation provision, all signatures on the document must be duly notarized. There is no equivalent requirement in the unemployment insurance statute. Because of this, an electronically signed agreement alone will not support the workers' compensation presumption, so plan for in-person or remote online notarization of every signer.
Service performed by an individual for another is deemed employment, whether or not the common-law relationship of master and servant exists, unless the business shows that the worker is free from control and direction in performing the service, both under the contract and in fact, and is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service. Control exercised because a state or federal statute or regulation requires it is not counted.
Wage, overtime, and paid leave questions are decided under the Colorado Wage Act definition of employee at C.R.S. 8-4-101(5), which weighs the degree of control and the degree to which the work is the primary work of the employer. The state labor department describes the unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and wage and hour definitions as similar but not identical, so do not treat one favorable outcome as settling the others.
A written agreement between a nonprofit youth sports organization and a coach is conclusive evidence of an independent contractor relationship for workers' compensation purposes, rather than merely rebuttable, where it carries a disclosure in bold-faced, underlined, or large type, in a conspicuous location, acknowledged by the parties, covering contractor status, the absence of workers' compensation benefits, and the income tax obligation. It is not conclusive in a civil action brought by a third party.
On a finding of misclassification the director shall order payment of back premiums owed plus interest. Where the employer acted with willful disregard of the law, the director may impose a fine of up to $5,000 per misclassified employee for a first offense and up to $25,000 per misclassified employee for a second or subsequent offense, and on a repeat offense may prohibit the employer from contracting with the state, or receiving state contract funds, for up to two years.
Several Colorado exclusions from employment are themselves conditioned on the paperwork. Licensed real estate brokers, direct sellers, and newspaper distributors are excluded under C.R.S. 8-70-136 only where pay is tied to sales or output and a written contract provides the person is not treated as an employee for federal tax purposes. Land professionals under C.R.S. 8-70-140.7 need a contract designating independent contractor status.
Frequently Asked Questions
Colorado attaches a legal consequence to how the document is drafted and formatted. Under C.R.S. 8-70-115(2), a document signed by both parties that addresses the applicable nine statutory factors and carries a prescribed disclosure, set in larger, bold-faced, or underlined type, creates a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship for unemployment insurance purposes. Few states put the typography of a clause into the statute.
Two statements. First, that the independent contractor is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits unless unemployment compensation coverage is provided by the contractor or some other entity. Second, that the contractor is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on any moneys paid under the contract relationship. C.R.S. 8-70-115(2) also fixes the format: the disclosure must be in type which is larger than the other provisions in the document or in bold-faced or underlined type.
No, and this is the most commonly missed point. C.R.S. 8-70-115(2) requires a disclosure about unemployment insurance benefits. The workers' compensation provision, C.R.S. 8-40-202(2)(b)(IV), requires its own disclosure referring to workers' compensation benefits. A business that wants the benefit of both presumptions needs both clauses in the document. A single blended sentence is not what either statute asks for.
Not to be a valid contract, and not for the unemployment insurance presumption under C.R.S. 8-70-115(2), which needs only the signatures of both parties. Notarization matters for the workers' compensation route: C.R.S. 8-40-202(2)(b)(IV) provides that all signatures on the document must be duly notarized. If you are relying on that clause, an electronic signature by itself will not carry it.
No. The effect is a shift in the burden of proof, not a determination of status. The state labor department states that a qualifying contract does not mean the worker would ultimately be determined to be an independent contractor, only that the burden of proof would be shifted. Regulation 17.1.5 of 7 CCR 1101-2 adds that such an agreement is not, in itself, conclusive. The facts of how the work is actually performed still decide the question, and attorney review is an option where the stakes are significant.
The safe answer is that no presumption arises and the business keeps the burden of proving both statutory prongs. There is a reported decision, Varsity Tutors v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 2017 COA 104, indicating that a failure to use large or bold-faced type is not automatically fatal where the required information is otherwise emphasized, assessed under a totality of the circumstances. Relying on that means litigating the point, so it is far cheaper to format the clause the way the statute describes.
Yes. C.R.S. 8-70-115(2) says in terms that the written document may be the contract for performance of service or a separate document, and C.R.S. 8-40-202(2)(b)(IV) says the same for workers' compensation. Either way it has to be signed by both parties, and for the workers' compensation version every signature must be notarized. Keeping the disclosure inside the signed agreement is usually simpler than tracking a second piece of paper.
No. Wage and hour questions run on a different employee definition at C.R.S. 8-4-101(5), which looks at the degree of control and the degree to which the work is the primary work of the employer. The state labor department describes the unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and wage and hour definitions as similar but not identical. The disclosure clauses do nothing for the wage and hour analysis.
For unemployment insurance, C.R.S. 8-72-114 requires the director to order payment of back premiums owed plus interest on a finding of misclassification, with no need to show willfulness. Where an employer acted with willful disregard of the law, the director may add a fine of up to $5,000 per misclassified employee for a first offense and up to $25,000 per misclassified employee for a second or subsequent one, and on a repeat violation may bar the employer from state contracting for up to two years.
Some are. The Colorado Employment Security Act excludes several occupations from employment altogether, including members of a limited liability company, sole proprietors and partners under C.R.S. 8-70-140.8, insurance agents paid solely by commission under C.R.S. 8-70-139, and licensed real estate brokers, direct sellers, and newspaper distributors under C.R.S. 8-70-136, though that last group needs a written contract stating the person is not treated as an employee for federal tax purposes.