As someone from a third-world country, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suspect that other than the hyper-inflated salaries in silicon valley, these metrics will be more than fair everywhere else.
Those numbers are a bad match.
It is not so poor by global standards.
Edit: clarity
> had fewer than 100 total individuals working as employees and independent contractors at all times during the last tax year
Yes, a company with 100 employees each working full time for a year would blow way past the $1 million/year revenue limit, so it might seem that there is no case where the 100 total individuals term could ever matter.
But looking at it again, I think what it is saying is that at no time during the last tax year did you have 100 or more employees. Read that way it is easy to have a business that fails that term without going anywhere near $1 million/year in revenue.
For example a business that makes some sort of holiday item that people only buy for a very short time every year. Most of the year the business has just a handful of employees making the items to build up a year's worth of inventory, then near the holiday that is all sold and they hire 100+ minimum wage workers to deliver the items.
I have a different loophole in mind. If you are a Huge Corporation, you are free to hire a contractor with 10 employees who each get paid 99,000 per year who uses your software for free? Can this contractor be a former employee? What if Huge Corporation is the contractor's only source of income?
(not just a hypothetical; I have witnessed this business arrangement.)