Categories
02. Employer Liability, Tax Rate, Successorship

MESC v Bennett Fuel Co – 2.15

MESC v Bennett Fuel Co
Digest no. 2.15

Section 18(d)(2)

Cite as: MESC v Bennett Fuel Co, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued May 30, 1995 (Docket No. 160028).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Bennett Fuel Company
Docket no.: L85-02360-RM1-2068
Date of decision: May 30, 1995

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Good cause for late protest of contribution rate established by showing that delay in filing an appeal was due to the misconduct of employer’s bookkeeper.

FACTS: In 1984 MESC raised employer’s contribution rate from 1% to 10% because of a missing quarterly report for the 2nd quarter of 1983. Notice of the increased tax rate was mailed on April 10, 1984. Employer did not protest within 30 days. Failure to observe time limit to protest of contribution rate was due to dereliction of duty on the part of employer’s bookkeeper–he had secreted a number of employer’s business documents in his car, destroyed others. When the misconduct was discovered, employer fired the bookkeeper, filed the missing quarterly report and requested redetermination of its contribution rate.

DECISION: Employer is entitled to present evidence on merits of its case for redetermination of the contribution rate.

RATIONALE: Unemployment Agency Administrative Rule 270 provides that “good cause” is defined to include situations where “an interested party has newly discovered material facts which through no fault of its own were not available at the time of the determination.” Gross misconduct of employer’s bookkeeper prevented employer from filing a timely appeal of the 10% contribution rate. This amounted to “good cause” for the delay.

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

Categories
02. Employer Liability, Tax Rate, Successorship

Peter McCreedy Trucking Co v MESC – 2.11

Peter McCreedy Trucking Co v MESC
Digest no. 2.11

Sections 15, 18

Cite asPeter McCreedy Trucking Co v MESC, unpublished memorandum of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued August 26, 1994 (Docket No. 156798).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Peter McCreedy Trucking Company
Docket no.: L90-11810-RO1-2187
Date of decision: August 26, 1994

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Circuit Court applied incorrect legal standard when it decided that maximum tax rate could not be imposed pursuant to Section 18(d)(2) unless MESC found that employer’s failure to file quarterly reports was “willful” pursuant to Section 15 of the Act.

FACTS: Employer failed to file required quarterly reports for the years 1986, 1988 and 1989. The reports were not filed within 30 days of notice of contribution rate as required for recomputation of the rate. The employer’s contribution rate was increased by the MESC pursuant to Section 18(d)(2). There was no evidence of misfeasance or malfeasance by the employer.

DECISION: Employer not entitled to redetermination of its contribution rate.

RATIONALE: Section 18 is a definitional section applicable to all employers. Section 15 is primarily a penalty section which sets forth alternative remedies available to the MESC when the employer’s contribution remains unpaid. The sections have different purposes and both are to be applied as written.

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