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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT