A & S BUILDING COMPANY, INC., CARE PLUS, INC., FINE FISH FARMS, INC., LITHGOW FUNERAL HOMES, INC., PLEZALL WIPERS, INC., UNITED DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1987-09-15
No. 87-201
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
514 So. 2d 380 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Employers appealed the Division of Unemployment Compensation's denial of their requests to decrease 1986 unemployment tax rates, arguing that the statutory formula excluding late-paid payrolls from tax rate calculations constitutes an unconstitutional penalty. The court affirmed, holding that the exclusion is not a penalty but rather a neutral statutory mechanism to encourage timely payment.


Holding

The exclusion of payrolls for which tax is paid late is not a penalty but rather a neutral statutory mechanism within a comprehensive scheme to encourage timely tax payment, and it provides clear statutory notice that such payrolls will be excluded from the tax rate computation.


Headnotes

[1] A statutory provision excluding payrolls on which unemployment tax is paid late from an employer's annual tax computation rate does not constitute an unconstitutional pen…

[2] A statutory scheme designed to encourage timely payment of unemployment taxes is consistent with legislative intent.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Such an exclusion may pose a hardship for the late-paying employer; however, the statutory prescription does not achieve constitutional dimensions.”

Establishes the court's rejection of the constitutional challenge despite acknowledging hardship to employers.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Six employers (A & S Building Company, Inc., Care Plus, Inc., Fine Fish Farms, Inc., Lithgow Funeral Homes, Inc., Plezall Wipers, Inc., and United Det…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Employers A & S Building Company, Inc., Care Plus, Inc., Fine Fish Farms, Inc., Lithgow Funeral Homes, Inc., Plezall Wipers, Inc., and United Detective Bureau, Inc. [collectively A & S] appeal from orders of the Director of the Division of Unemployment Compensation [the Division] denying their appeals to decrease their 1986 unemployment tax rates. We affirm the Division’s orders based upon our finding that the tax rate formula set forth in section 443.131(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1985),1 is not a “penalty” and, therefore, does not implicate constitutional considerations.

A & S contends that excluding from an employer’s annual tax computation rate the payrolls on which Florida unemployment tax is paid late represents a “penalty” which is not plainly stated by section 443.-131(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1985). We disagree. Such an exclusion may pose a hardship for the late-paying employer; however, the statutory prescription does not achieve constitutional dimensions. The legislature has established, in section 443.-131(3), a comprehensive scheme to encourage timely payment of unemployment tax es. If we were to accept A & S’s logic, then those employers who timely pay their taxes would have to absorb the deficit caused by late tax payments. Thus, prompt taxpaying employers with good experience ratings would suffer the “penalty.” This outcome obviously contradicts the legislative intent manifested in section 443.131(3).

Moreover, we conclude that the exclusion of payrolls for which tax is paid late is not a “penalty.” The statute affords clear notice that those payrolls will be excluded in the computation of the employer’s tax rate. See Maine Employment Sec. Comm’n v. Charest, 158 Me. 43, 177 A. 2d 654 (1962) (decreased rate of assessment upon employer by virtue of good experience rating is in nature of reward or bonus for prompt payment; imposition of full assessment upon employer for failure to make prompt payment does not constitute a “penalty.”).

The Division’s orders are, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

. Section 443.131(3) provides in relevant part:

(f) As used in subparagraph (b)2., the term "annual payroll” means the total amount of wages for insured employment paid by an employer during the 12-month period ending on September 30 of any calendar year with respect to which contributions have been paid on or before the date on which they became due and payable; and as used in subparagraph (b)l., the term "annual payroll'' means the total amount of wages for insured employment paid by an employer during a period of four consecutive calendar quarters with respect to which contributions have been paid on or before the date on which they become due and payable. Provided, that where no contributions are payable for a calendar quarter, the term "annual payroll” as used in paragraph (b) includes only wages paid during such quarter with respect to which contribution and wage reports have been submitted to the division on or before the date on which they became due.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Broward Rest. Equip. & Repair Corp. v. State, 514 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. A & S Building Company, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation, 514 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw