It’s not a hard rule. It’s just one of a number of tests. But contractors are generally expected to provide their own tools.
I probably was more of a “temporary employee” than a contractor. But what’s the difference at that point? I was paid more than the value of entitlements as cash. It suited both parties, and was mutually agreed.
In hindsight, having them provide the hardware, and then handing it back at the end of the engagement would be my preference. It reduced any risks for them and me.
Tho I can easily imagine on/off or short infrequent contracting scenarios that this would not work for.
If you’re a temporary employee, the employer is responsible for payroll taxes, and has additional obligations to you (depending on the state). You’re obligations— both to your employer and to the IRS—are different as well.
I’m addition to unlawfully skirting regulations, misclassifying an employee as a contractor is essentially stealing from the employee by reducing the company’s tax burden and increasing the employee’s.
If you want to be really cheeky, could get some value-added margin on it too, and as a bonus, AIUI it would be yours to keep after the engagement, rather than having to return hardware they've assigned to you.
Might be tough to get past finance though, unless they really want that certification :)