Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Glanville v. DUPAR, INC.

Plaintiffs, consisting of current and former workers of Dupar, Inc., Dupar Properties, Inc., and J. Kelly Parsons, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees, leading to disputes over overtime pay and FICA/FUTA tax payments. The defendants, collectively referred to as 'Dupar', filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, ruling that FICA and FUTA do not create an implied private right of action for employees against employers. Additionally, the court found the state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation to be preempted by federal tax law due to the comprehensive administrative scheme established by Congress. Final judgment was entered by separate order.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA)Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)Independent Contractor ClassificationEmployee MisclassificationPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissPreemptionBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligent Misrepresentation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 22, 1997

George M. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Hudson Valley Staff Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, concerning a breach of contract action against Hudson Valley Staff Leasing Corp. (HVSL). The plaintiff claimed HVSL overcharged by not reducing fees when Federal Unemployment Insurance Tax (FUTA) and State Unemployment Insurance Tax (SUTA) were no longer payable on employee wages exceeding $7,000, arguing this constituted a 'statutory decrease'. HVSL contended it charged a flat rate and that such an event was not a statutory decrease. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross-motions, ruling that the cessation of FUTA and SUTA payments was indeed a 'statutory decrease' requiring a fee reduction. The matter was remitted for a hearing to determine damages.

breach of contractemployee leasing agreementFUTASUTAunemployment insurance taxstatutory decreasesummary judgmentappellate reviewoverchargefee reduction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Phinney

This consolidated memorandum opinion addresses three cases seeking refunds of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleged the plaintiffs, who operate shrimp boats in Rockport, Texas, were employers of shrimp captains and deck hands. Plaintiffs argued these workers were independent contractors, not employees, under the common-law tests. The court reviewed factors such as the right to control, right of discharge, integration of work, profit/loss opportunities, permanency, and the parties' own views. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiffs were indeed employers and denied the tax refund claims.

FICA taxesFUTA taxesemployment taxtax refundemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractorcommon law testright to controlshrimp fishing industrymaritime law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Smoky Mountain Secrets, Inc. v. United States

This case involves a tax refund action brought by Smoky Mountain Secrets, Inc. (SMS) against the United States Department of the Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding FICA and FUTA taxes. SMS contended that its telemarketers and delivery persons were erroneously classified as employees for federal tax purposes, arguing they qualified as "direct sellers" under 26 U.S.C. § 3508. The court found that SMS's sales force met the requirements of "direct sellers" due to their commission-based remuneration, sales activities, and written contracts disclaiming employee status. Additionally, the court concluded that SMS was entitled to relief under Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, having demonstrated a reasonable basis for treating its workers as independent contractors by relying on professional advice from two certified public accountants. Consequently, the court awarded judgment in favor of SMS for a refund of $400 in employment taxes.

Tax refundFICA taxesFUTA taxesIndependent contractorsDirect sellers26 U.S.C. § 3508Section 530 Revenue Act of 1978Reasonable basisProfessional adviceCPA reliance

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Glanville v. DUPAR, INC.

George M. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Hudson Valley Staff Leasing Corp.

breach of contractemployee leasing agreementFUTASUTAunemployment insurance taxstatutory decreasesummary judgmentappellate reviewoverchargefee reduction

Jackson v. Phinney

FICA taxesFUTA taxesemployment taxtax refundemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractorcommon law testright to controlshrimp fishing industrymaritime law

Smoky Mountain Secrets, Inc. v. United States

Tax refundFICA taxesFUTA taxesIndependent contractorsDirect sellers26 U.S.C. § 3508Section 530 Revenue Act of 1978Reasonable basisProfessional adviceCPA reliance