MESC v Monkman Construction – 2.20

MESC v Monkman Construction
Digest no. 2.20

Sections 18(d)(2), 32a

Cite as: MESC v Monkman Constr, unpublished per curiam Court of Appeals, issued May 7, 1996 (Docket No. 176053).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Monkman Construction
Docket no.: L92-02019-2287
Date of decision: May 7, 1996

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where employer failed to request redetermination of its tax rate for more than one year after issuance of rate determination, reconsideration was time barred and Referee properly dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS: Employer’s contribution rate was set at 10 percent and a determination to that effect was issued on February 14, 1990. Employer failed to submit a quarterly report for 1989. The 30 day protest period ended March 16, 1990. Employer submitted the missing report on March 27, 1990, but did not request redetermination of its rate until November 19, 1991, more than a year after the determination was issued.

DECISION: Redetermination of tax rate denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

RATIONALE: Section 32a(2) bars appeals filed more than one year after prior decision or determination. Statutory time restrictions on seeking review of unemployment tax assessments are jurisdictional. As a result, the “good cause” analysis was inapposite.

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

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Cite as: MESC v Bennett Fuel Co, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued May 30, 1995 (Docket No. 160028).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

MESC v Regis Associates – 2.16

MESC v Regis Associates
Digest no. 2.16

Section 18(d)(2)

Cite as: MESC v Regis Assoc, unpublished memorandum of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued May 27, 1994 (Docket No. 162000).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Regis Associates
Docket no.: L90-08433-2113
Date of decision: May 27, 1994

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where employer’s agent advised it to file a late quarterly report and it nonetheless failed to do so, this was negligence on employer’s part and it did not establish good cause for late protest of its contribution rate.

FACTS: Employer filed an untimely protest of its contribution rate. Employer claimed its agent was negligent for failing to timely file a quarterly report. However, the agent advised employer to file the late quarterly report within the 30 day extension period provided in Section 18(d)(2) but the employer failed to follow this advice.

DECISION: No good cause shown, contribution rate determination became final.

RATIONALE: “Had plaintiff filed the report when advised to do so by its agent, no protest would have been necessary under Section 18(d)(2) of the MESA.”

Editor’s Note: This case was decided one year before the court of Appeals decision in Bennett Fuel, see Digest 2.15. The Regispanel of the Court of Appeals expressly distinguished Bennett Fuel, which had been decided by the Kent Circuit Court and was then pending at the Court of Appeals, on the basis the Bennett Fuel employer did not receive the rate determination in question because of an employee’s wrongful action.

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

Section 18(d)(2)

Section 18(d)(2)

“If at least 1 but fewer than all of the applicable quarterly reports of wages and contributions due with respect to the 12-month period ending on the computation date have been filed by an employer, the employer’s experience component shall be set so that his or her contribution rate for the calendar year affected shall be the rate set in accordance with section 19(a), and in addition a penalty of 3% of wages paid to an individual with respect to employment, subject to the taxable wage limit, shall be imposed on the employer. The commission shall calculate the rate using the information filed by the employer for the quarter or quarters reported. If none of the applicable quarterly reports of wages and contributions due with respect to the 12-month period ending on the computation date have been filed by an employer, the employer’s experience component shall be set so that the employer’s contribution rate for the calendar year affected shall be not less than the highest rate applicable to the number of years of the employer’s contribution liability in accordance with section 19(a), and in addition a penalty of 3% of wages paid to an individual with respect to employment, subject to the taxable wage limit, shall be imposed on the employer. An employer whose contribution rate and penalty have been determined under this section may have his or her contribution rate redetermined in accordance with section 19(a) and may have his or her penalty redetermined and removed if the employer files all of the missing reports not later than 30 days after the date of mailing of the notice of determination of contribution rate. An employer who files all of the missing reports after the 30 days but not later than 1 year after the date of mailing of the determination of contribution rate and penalty shall have his or her contribution rate redetermined in accordance with section 19(a) and shall have his or her penalty redetermined to 2%. However, if the commission finds that the employer had good cause for filing the missing reports after the 30-day period but within 1 year, the commission shall redetermine the employer’s contribution rate in accordance with section 19(a) and shall redetermine and remove the penalty. The commission may by rule prescribe good cause reasons for removing the penalty. Notwithstanding section 32a, if the employer files all of the missing reports after 1 year, good cause shall not be considered, but the employer’s contribution rate shall be redetermined in accordance with section 19(a) and the employer’s penalty shall remain at 3%. A penalty paid by an employer pursuant to this section shall not be credited to the employer’s experience account nor to the unemployment compensation fund. The penalty shall be credited to the interest and penalty account of the contingent fund. A contribution rate for a tax year may not be redetermined under this subsection if the missing reports for that year are received more than 3 years after the rate determination for the year is issued with respect to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1991.” from Michigan Legislature

Other Section 18(d)(2) cases