State v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 08 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 11184,11184 |
| Citation | 377 S.W.2d 839 |
| Parties | The STATE of Texas et al., Appellants, v. Fred SULLIVAN, Nancy Lee Johnson Holland and H. R. Holland, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., Ernest Fortenberry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellees.
Appellants brought suit on behalf of the Texas Employment Commission for delinquent unemployment compensation taxes. Appellees defended on grounds that all their workmen were engaged in 'agricultural labor,' which is exempt from taxation. Appellees' sole business, the eradication of brush from ranch lands by means of chemical spraying, is described very accurately and fully in the Findings of Fact. The Trial Court entered judgment for the defendants.
The appeal is based on two points of error:
'Point I. The definition of 'agricultural labor' in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C.A., Sec. 3306(k) governs the case at hand, and the Trial Court erred in its Conclusions of Law (numbered B) to the contrary.
Any employer in this State who is liable for taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act thereby automatically becomes liable for State unemployment taxes by virtue of the definition of the term 'employer' in Article 5221b-17(f)(5), V.A.T.S., which reads as follows:
"Employer' means: * * * (5) Any employing unit which is liable for the payment of taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act for the current calendar year.'
The term 'employing unit' is defined in Article 5221b-17(e) as 'any individual or type of organization * * * which has or, subsequent to January 1, 1936, had in its employ one (1) or more individuals performing services for it within this State.' The tax in question is levied on 'employers' by Article 5221b-5.
Article 5221b-17(f) states the four different ways one may become an 'employer' subject to the tax coverage of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act: (1) by having four or more employees; (2) by acquiring the organization, trade or business of a liable employer; (3) by voluntary election; or, (4) by coming within the coverage of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. It should be noted that the State's petition simply alleged that the defendants were 'employers' within the statutory definition without attempting to state which section of the definition of 'employer' the defendants came under. Therefore, on the pleading, we may look to any of the four means by which one may become an 'employer' to see whether the defendants fit the definition.
It appears clear that the defendants are liable for the payment of taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and thereby became liable for State unemployment taxes. The Federal Act, 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3306, subsections (a) and (c), has the same basic coverage as the Texas Act, covering all employers of four or more persons. Like the Texas Act, Art. 5221b-17(f)(5)(B), the Federal Act, 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3306(c), exempts 'agricultural labor;' however, the Federal Act goes on to define the term in Section 3306(k) as follows:
'For purposes of this chapter, the term 'agricultural labor' includes all service performed----
'(1) on a farm, in the employ of any person, in connection with cultivating the soil, or in connection with raising or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Employment Com'n v. Camarena
...v. The Praetorians, 143 Tex. 565, 186 S.W.2d 973 (1945); Friedman v. American Surety Co., 137 Tex. 149, 151 S.W.2d 570 (1941); State v. Sullivan, 377 S.W.2d 839 (Tex.Civ.App.1964, no In 1985, however, the 69th Legislature amended the Act to provide that "farm and ranch labor" would come wit......
-
Mississippi Employment Sec. Commission v. Ballard Co.
...be overruled and denied * * *. The appellant cites Clifford D. Means v. Dir. (Vol. 4, CCH, UI Reporter, Ill.1968); State v. Sullivan, 377 S.W.2d 839 (Tex.Civ.App.1964); and Scofield v. Tinnin, 171 F.2d 227 (5 Cir., 1948), as having construed statutes of identical language with subsections (......