A & S Building Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security
This text of 514 So. 2d 380 (A & S Building Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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[381]*381es. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
514 So. 2d 380, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2239, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-s-building-co-v-state-department-of-labor-employment-security-fladistctapp-1987.