ILNews

COA reduces $125k judgment against company to $200 in fines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that a liability administrative law judge erred in determining that a company that previously operated a call center in Fishers owed more than $125,000 in unemployment insurance contributions, interest and penalties for a year when the company had no Indiana employees, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

In TPUSA, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, 93A02-1207-EX-605, TPUSA Inc. appealed the $125,666.33 judgment levied against it by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and upheld by the LALJ in 2012 concerning unemployment insurance contributions for the 2010 calendar year. Prior to 2010, TPUSA, owned by a Florida company, had a call center in Fishers, but beginning in October 2009 the facility was closed and no longer had anyone employed in Indiana. TPUSA submitted its 2009 fourth-quarter wage report to the DWD showing no employees and no paid wages, but it did not mark the report final. It did not file any quarterly payroll reports with the department for 2010.

In 2011, the DWD went after TPUSA for overdue unemployment insurance contributions for 2010. TPUSA did not initially respond to notices sent to it by DWD, and the DWD estimated that the company’s overdue contributions, plus interest and penalties, totaled more than $125,000. TPUSA later appealed, but the LALJ affirmed the amount.

The Court of Appeals found the DWD acted properly under the Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act because it was unaware that TPUSA ceased operations in Indiana. TPUSA did not mark its last quarter report in 2009 as “final report” and did not notify the DWD it no longer operated in the state. Thus, DWD expected to continue to receive quarterly contribution and wage reports from the company for 2010.

The statute does allow for a reduction of the estimated amount of contribution if the employer makes a showing of “reasonable cause” for failure to timely file the reports.

“We hold that where an employer has ceased business operations in Indiana, no longer pays wages or has any employees in the state, and files accurate reports with the Department indicating such, this may be considered ‘reasonable cause,’ as required by Indiana Code section 22-4-11-4(b), so as to allow for an adjustment (i.e., reduction) in the amount of the estimated contribution,” Senior Judge Betty Barteau wrote.

Instead, the judges found that a $25 fine assessed under I.C. 22-4-19-10 against any company that negligently or willfully fails to submit any report required under the Act to be proper. Because two reports are required to be filed each quarter, TPUSA owes $200.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT