COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Good cause for late protest of a determination of successorship may be found where the employer submitted a revised registration report containing additional or corrected information regarding the percentage of assets acquired.
MESC v NL Industries (USA), Inc Digest no. 2.09 Sections 21, 32a Cite as: MESC v NL Industries (USA), Inc, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued January 5, 1994 (Docket No. 93-459745-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: NL Industries (USA), Inc. Docket no.: L90-10851-2103 Date of decision: January 5, 1994 View/download the full decision… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a vertical merger takes place involving multiple corporate entities related as parent – subsidiary, the merger transactions occur in sequence, not simultaneously.
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).
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.
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.
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 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 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 »