Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Ronorabls Olvllle 8, cupaltar
Chairman and lhmoutlve Dlreator
Texua Un%mploym%nt Gwnponsation Cdeufon
Aimtin, Texan
War Slrr
Vember 21, 1939, re- ion of uubreat4ona It+17 P%Tnon*~ Anno- fact 6ituutiw* whleh rstlan is ame by A. k of the Z 0 that u 00rpor~th~ k&f&d d&It snaftidUcli6 in wup1oymwlt bukiag; the NT& nineteen weaka of 1938, and that Z Go~at$,on had three illd%ti&Uti6 in during the whole of the peer 1938. tmiplapent *2 Eonorabla C&d116 s. Carpd6r, mw
During tho nineteenth week of 1938, A aoquIr.6 the stock of the Z Corporation, and M Corpora- tion reduces the number of individuals WI loyraent to fly% and oontlnuea during the re- Its ma f nIng week6 ot the year with five lndlridaals In Its employment. Do bl and Z Corporation6 be- ;;";" subjeot employers by virtue of Seation 19(f)
, and, if 80, i&en?"
Subseotion (1) and (4) ot aeotiac (f) of the 'Poxas T.Jncmploymcnt Conrwnsation Aot, 6ame baine Artfolc 5221b-17, 6upra, reads, 'In part, 66 follow6:
"(f) lDztployer' mean8
"(1) Any employing Unit whloh~ Por soin% por- tion of a dny but not neOeS6arIly 6iElUltall%oU6lp, in each of twenty (20) diff6tcnt maks, whether or not suah woeks am or were aonaaoutlvs, wIthin ramdine calsnda~ year, either the CUrrent or the haa or had In emplojnn6nt I) % ght (8) or more indi- vlduals (Irresgeative of whether the SRT% lndi- YidU416 are OF were sa~ploysd in each 6UOh dey1.t
"(4) by employment unit whioh together with on6 or pore other %LNpl%ying !iIiItB, I6 Olrn%d or Bon- trolled (by legally enforosabls mean6 or othsni6s) direotly or lndfreotly by the same Interest, or which owna or oantmls one or hor6 other %aploying units ‘(by leeally enioroeable m%an6 or otherwleet, and whloh, If traatsd aS a aIngle.unIt with auoh other employing unit, would be m emloyer tmdcr paMLgFaph (1) Of thf6 6Ub86otIOn; . . .*
In the first raot altuation mantloncd In your lct- tsri it la clear that eq%h Oogoratlon I6 6~ *6!ap~opIn?~ unit" afihin 6Ubseotlons (1) and (4) of as%tIon t,f) of ArtI%l% $i22lb-l7,~:~&upre. An %mployIng un1.t is derimd in reotion (e) ot Artisle 5221-b-17, as follow%t
*'E#oying, tinItv means any Individual or type of or~izstlon, inoludlng a>y . .:'. oorpar- ation, . l . which has or rubeequcnt to fanuary 1, 1936, had in its %m$toy m.16 or mope indi-, viduals p~riomfne sorvioos Par it within t.b,fs &z&e.*
552 ~mb-able Orville 3. Carpenter, Page
In subseotlon (&), aupti, we Tin4 that two or
mom er?:loyinc units are to be treate4 ss one If they are owzo4 or oontrolled by the eeme interest. The two ooF- poratlons mentioned in your first faot situation, are owue4 or co&rolled by the sme Interest au4 together have ei,ght (8) or zore, inditldunls in their enploymnt.
IJnder the provisions of subsection (1) of eeation (f) of Artlole 5221b-17, we find that the eight (8) or more employees nust have Men employed for some portfon of a 4ag but not necessarily simultaneously, in caoh of twenty (20) afsfort3nt wco!cs, whether or not such weeks em or were oon- seoutlve, within either the current or yrsoeding year.
In applyinK t!:ie above paragraph to your Tirst feat sibuatlon, we are of the opinion that it is the two aorporatlons, together, to hevo the more lndivfduels in their employment ior e
(20) weeks, the manner as spsclflsQ in said subrreotlon tl), beglnnlng from the time they were owue.4 or eontrolle4 by the same interest and not prior to that time.
Subaeotlon (1) of motion (f) provides that the twenty (20) weeka of em@oyment are those @within either the ourrent or preoediw oalenbar year." We oonetrue this. provision to mean twenty (20) weeks wholly within the cur- rent or the preasding year. slnoe there urs not twenty (20) weeks remeininc: in the year 1938 (subsequent to the forty- first waek), we oonolude that two oorporations aantioned in your first feat sltuatlon are liable for taxes under the Texss Uumployment Compensation Act after the tenainetlon of the twent$eth (20th) week or 1939* esmmlng that there are eight (8) or more indlvldusls employad for a part of sash of the said twenty (20) weeks. answering the.quest$.ons raise4 in your seaond
faot situation we eoncluae that the two aor,orstione oome within subaeotiona (1) an4 (&) of seoti6n (f f 5221b-l7;!and are liebl for taxes under se14 &?%%%I the termination of twenty r 20) weeks subsequent to the nineteenth (19th' week of 1938. Thfa would make the two mentionea aor- poret 1 one liable for said taxes at the termlnntion of the thirtyAninth (39th) week of 1938 in the same manner and ior ffanorable Orville S. Carpenter, Page 4
the ssme reasons ea set out in the f’lrst faot sltuntion.
iye wish to as11 yaw attontlon to tha fact that there is o varianoa between the~nunhcrs of soot-ions of Artiole 522lh Vernon*.s Annotat@ Civil Statute8 and the numbered Seodons rsfofiad to in your letter. 2e have used the nUnbeF6 as sot out Vornon'a .L?notated Civil Statut.68.
Trusting that this is the Information desired, we remain
Youra very truly ATTORN-EY G~ERAL OF TEXAS Glenn R. Lewis Aaal5tont Lea shoptew ATTORNEY GEI\'ERA-L OF Tz&$$