ILNews

Stable owner liable for unemployment tax, appeals court affirms

Dave Stafford
September 23, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owner of a Zionsville horse stable lost her appeal of a determination that she owed unemployment insurance tax for employees because they performed non-agricultural work.

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed the judgment of liability made by Aija Funderburk, an administrative law judge for the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, who ordered the owner of Boone Ridge Stables to pay back years’ unemployment insurance taxes plus interest and penalties.

A terminated three-year stable employee filed for unemployment benefits in July 2011 and the department filed a “block claim investigation” after it found the stable reported no wages for the worker. An audit ensued, finding the stable paid more than $70,000 in wages from 2008-2011.

Stable owner C. Subah Packer argued that employees were exempt because they provided “agricultural labor,” but the department differed, and the COA agreed in C. Subah Packer v. The Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 93A02-1301-EX-83.

Packer agued the workers cared for “agricultural commodities,” and thus the stable is exempt from tax liabilities and providing unemployment insurance benefits. She argued none of the employees gave riding lessons, for instance, which would not qualify as agricultural labor.

“We have not previously construed the definition of ‘agricultural commodities’ in the unemployment compensation context,” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the court, which found guidance in Day v. Ryan, 560 N.E.2d 77, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). That decision followed the line of established caselaw recognizing a fundamental distinction between an agricultural pursuit and a separately organized, independent productive activity.

“Packer operated a stable where she raised, managed, and conducted husbandry services for horses. Her employees fed and cared for the horses, turned them out to pasture, helped maintain the farm buildings and equipment, and performed husbandry services. In general, such activity is agricultural labor,” Najam wrote. “But the employees also cared for boarded horses and horses used for riding lessons in addition to tending Packer’s horses. The boarding of horses is not agricultural but, instead, is a separately organized, independent productive activity.”

Because the stables didn’t keep adequate employment records, the department couldn’t determine how much of the work might have been agricultural and how much might not have been.

"Thus, [Funderburk] could not make an evidence-based determination of which employees and how many hours were attributable to agricultural and non-agricultural labor, and the Department could not calculate the amount of unemployment compensation taxes owed solely for non-agricultural labor,” Najam wrote for the panel that included judges Elaine Brown and Paul Mathias. The opinion affirms that Packer must pay unemployment compensation taxes on the entire amount of employee pay for the audit years.

“To conclude otherwise would have allowed Packer to escape liability for taxes owed for non-agricultural labor. We cannot say that the ... factual determination is arbitrary, unreasonable, against the evidence, or contrary to law. As such, we affirm the ... determination that Packer is liable for unemployment insurance taxes for the audited years.”

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT