Categories
02. Employer Liability, Tax Rate, Successorship

R F Molitoris, DDS v MESC – 2.13

R F Molitoris, DDS v MESC
Digest no. 2.13

Sections 11(g), 18(d)32a

Cite asR F Molitoris, DDS v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb County Circuit Court, issued January 21, 1993 (Docket No. 92-3446-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Wanda Forbes
Employer: R.F. Molitoris, D.D.S.
Docket no.: L90-06544-2224
Date of decision: January 21, 1993

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: An interstate claimant’s entitlement to benefits is determined by the state in which the claim is made. The Agency is not precluded from redetermining an erroneous contribution rate if such redetermination is made within one year of the issuance of the initial rate.

FACTS: Claimant Wanda Forbes worked for involved employer and another Michigan employer in 1981 before moving to Nevada where she worked, then filed a combined wage claim for benefits, in September 1982. The Michigan employers provided information but this employer was not notified of charges to its account until 1985. Employer challenged charges and an adjustment of $898 was made for 1986. Employer requested redetermination of rate in 1989 which was denied as untimely. Agency subsequently discovered employer had received $898 credit for years 1987 through 1990 in error. Nevertheless, the Agency only recalculated the 1990 rate because redetermination of others was time barred under Section 32a.

DECISION: Redetermination of 1990 rate affirmed.

RATIONALE: Employer lacked standing to challenge award of benefits because under MESA Section 11(g), which conforms with 26 USC 3304, her entitlement to benefits was controlled by laws of Nevada (paying state). Agency had the authority to redetermine employer’s 1990 contribution rate within one year of its issuance. Erroneous rates for 1987 through 1989 could not be redetermined because of the one year time limit.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99

Categories
02. Employer Liability, Tax Rate, Successorship

Trumble’s Rent-L-Center, Inc v MESC – 2.18

Trumble’s Rent-L-Center v MESC
Digest no. 2.18

Sections 18(d), 21

Cite as: Trumble’s Rent-L-Center v MESC, 197 Mich App 229 (1992).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Trumble’s Rent-L-Center, Inc.
Docket no.: L88-14843-1985
Date of decision: December 7, 1992

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where employer submitted a missing quarterly report more than 30 days after the issuance of a rate determination, mere submission of the report did not amount to a request for an extension of time under Section 21(a).

FACTS: Employer failed to file a quarterly report for quarter ending September 30, 1985. MESC issued Notice of Contribution Rate on March 23, 1987 assessing 10% rate because of the missing report. The notice stated that if the missing report was provided within 30 days, the rate would be recomputed. The notice further stated that the rate determination would be final if not appealed within thirty days and that an additional thirty days would be granted upon written request. The employer filed the missing report on May 5, 1987-more than thirty days after mailing of the March 23, 1987 Notice. The employer contends that sending the report operated as a request for redetermination as it was submitted within the allowable extension period.

DECISION: The March 23, 1987 rate determination became final thirty days after it was mailed.

RATIONALE: Words or phrases in the statute are accorded their plain and ordinary meaning, unless otherwise defined. Filing a report is not equivalent to mailing a written request. Therefore, it cannot be found that a request for an extension of time was made. “The burden is not on the agency to discern the intent of its correspondents.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99