Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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&dd&It snaftidUcli6 in wup1oymwlt bukiag; the NT& nineteen weaka of 1938, and that Z Go~at$,on had three illd%ti&Uti6 in tmiplapent during the whole of the peer 1938. Eonorabla C&d116 s. Carpd6r, mw 2 During tho nineteenth week of 1938, A aoquIr.6 the stock of the Z Corporation,and M Corpora- tion reduces the number of individuals In Its WI loyraentto fly% and oontlnueaduring the re- mafnIng week6 ot the year with five lndlridaals In Its employment. Do bland Z Corporation6be- ;;";"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 ConrwnsationAot, 6ame baine Artfolc 5221b-17, 6upra, reads, 'Inpart, 66 follow6: "(f) lDztployer' mean8 "(1) Any employing Unit whloh~Por soin%por- tionof a dny but not neOeS6arIly 6iElUltall%oU6lp, in each of twenty (20) diff6tcnt maks, whether or not suah woeks am or were aonaaoutlvs,wIthin either the CUrrent or the ramdine calsnda~year, haa or had In emplojnn6nt%I) ght (8) or more indi- vlduals (Irresgeativeof whether the SRT% lndi- YidU416 are OF were sa~ploysdin each 6UOh dey1.t "(4) by employmentunit whioh together with on6 or pore other %LNpl%ying!iIiItB, I6 Olrn%dor Bon- trolled (by legally enforosablsmean6 or othsni6s) direotly or lndfreotlyby the same Interest, or which owna or oantmls one or hor6 other %aploying units ‘(by leeally enioroeablem%an6 or otherwleet, and whloh, If traatsd aS a aIngle.unItwith auoh other employingunit, 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% An %mployIngun1.tis derimd in reotion $i22lb-l7,~:~&upre. (e) ot Artisle 5221-b-17, as follow%t *'E#oying, tinItvmeans any Individualor type of or~izstlon, inoludlng a>y . .:'.oorpar- ation, . l. which has or rubeequcnt to fanuary 1, 1936, had in its %m$toy m.16or mope indi-, viduals p~riomfne sorvioos Par it within t.b,fs &z&e.* 552 ~mb-able Orville 3. Carpenter,Page 3 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,inditldunlsin their enploymnt. IJnderthe provisionsof 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) afsfort3ntwco!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 lndivfduelsin their employmentior e (20) weeks, In the manner as spsclflsQ in said subrreotlon tl), beglnnlng from the time they were owue.4or 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 (subsequentto the forty- first waek), we oonolude that the two oorporations aantioned in your first feat sltuatlonare liable for taxes under the Texss Uumployment CompensationAct after the tenainetlonof the twent$eth (20th) week or 1939* esmmlng that there are eight (8) or more indlvlduslsemployad for a part of sash of the said twenty (20) weeks. In answering the.quest$.onsraise4 in your seaond faot situation we eoncluae that the two aor,orstione oome within subaeotiona (1) an4 (&) of seoti6n (ff 5221b-l7;!andare liebl for taxes under se14 &?%%%I the terminationof twenty r20) weeks subsequentto the nineteenth (19th' week of 1938. Thfa would make the two mentionea aor- poret1one liable for said taxes at the termlnntionof the thirtyAninth(39th) week of 1938 in the same manner and ior 553 ffanorableOrville 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~nunhcrsof the 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 In Vornon'a .L?notatedCivil 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&$$