Trumble’s Rent-L-Center v MESC
Digest no. 2.18
Cite as: Trumble’s Rent-L-Center v MESC, 197 Mich App 229 (1992).
Appeal pending: No
Employer: Trumble’s Rent-L-Center, Inc.
Docket no.: L88-14843-1985
Date of decision: December 7, 1992
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