MESC v Caberfae Associates – 2.03
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The value of pending litigation was too speculative to be considered an asset. As such the employer acquired 75% or more of the predecessor and is a successor employer under Section 41(2).
Category Archives: 02. Employer Liability, Tax Rate, Successorship
Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc v MESC – 2.19
Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc v MESC Digest no. 2.19 Sections 22, 41 Cite as: Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc, v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Cass County Circuit Court, issued March 29, 1990 (Docket No. 86-12638AA). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Midway Stop-N-Shop, Inc. Docket no.: L86-08390-RM1 (Bypassed Board of Review) Date of decision: March 29, 1990 View/download the full… Read More »
Ha-Marque Fabricators, Inc v MESC – 2.04
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A weighted average of the tax rate of the employer’s two predecessors which were merged into it must be used to determine the employer’s tax rate under Section 19 and 22(e)(3).
Hillman Pallet Co v MESC – 2.05
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: 1) Employer’s protest of a determination which informed the employer it was a successor to a predecessor and therefore liable for all, or a share, of the predecessor’s rating account preserved the tax rate issue even though the determination did not specify a rate. 2) Amount of assets retained by seller must be considered in determination of percentage of assets transferred.
Baxter Decorating and Painting Co v MESC – 2.10
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where various business elements were transferred including some physical assets, disclosure of customers, gain of business from several customers of transferor, there was substantial evidence of a business transfer although the computation of the percentage of the rating account to be transferred was arbitrary.
MESC v Allied Supermarkets, Inc – 2.07
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: When a chain store sells 3 of 126 stores and the purchaser continues to employ 90% of the seller’s former employees, there is a transfer of business, and that part of the seller’s rating account pertaining to the employees of the 3 stores must be transferred, pursuant to Section 22 of the Act, to the purchaser.
MESC v Arrow Plating Co – 2.01
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “If a vital integral part of the business is not transferred, regardless of how many people make up that integral part, so that the business could not continue, then there has not been a transfer of the `organization’ for the purposes of this Act.”
MESC v Patt – 2.08
MESC v Patt Digest no. 2.08 Cite as: MESC v Patt, 4 Mich App 225 (1966). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Fred Patt Docket no.: N/A Date of decision: September 13, 1966 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The employer’s contributions required under the Michigan Employment Security Act are a tax within the meaning of Section 17… Read More »
Valley Metal Co v MESC – 2.02
Valley Metal Co v MESC Digest no. 2.02 Section 22 Cite as: Valley Metal Co v MESC, 365 Mich 297 (1961). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Valley Metal Products Company Docket no.: L57 2347 1040 Date of decision: December 28, 1961 View/download the full decision SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Transferred account means the rating account which… Read More »