Basila Unemployment Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Basila Unemployment Compensation Case

190 A.2d 155, 200 Pa. Super. 500, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 673

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 18, 1963

DocketAppeal, No. 19

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 A.2d 155 (Basila Unemployment Compensation Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basila Unemployment Compensation Case, 190 A.2d 155, 200 Pa. Super. 500, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 673 (Pa. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

The claimant-appellant, Helen Miles Basila, was denied unemployment compensation from George Basila, Inc., on the basis that she was self-employed and ineligible for bentfits under the provisions of section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

[501]*501Our review of the record discloses sufficient competent evidence to support the finding made by the Unemployment Compensation Board to the effect that she and her husband owned eighty per cent of the stock of the company and were in control of its corporate activities. Therefore, this finding of the board must be sustained. Progress Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 Pa. 163, 176 A. 2d 632.

The evidence would justify a finding that George Basila was a skilled artisan in masonry work, that based on his skill he and the claimant had conducted a contracting business from their home for many years until June 27, 1961, when they incorporated “For income tax and other general tax purposes”; and that thereafter they continued the conduct of the business in the same manner although under the new corporate name. The record is vague and uncertain as to the total number of shares issued by the new corporation, only six or seven shares are accounted for. All of the shares are held either by claimant or her husband or other close relations, and have been transferred among themselves without any evidence of contribution of capital by the relatives to whom shares may have been transferred.

In such cases it was permissible for the unemployment compensation authorities to pierce the corporate veil in order to determine the true ownership of the corporation. DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 612, 177 A. 2d 20; Hamburg Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 598, 162 A. 2d 55.

The facts found by the compensation authorities being amply supported by the evidence and the law properly applied, its decision must be affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

The claimant-appellant, Helen Miles Basila, was denied unemployment compensation from George Basila, Inc., on the basis that she was self-employed and ineligible for bentfits under the provisions of section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

[501]*501Our review of the record discloses sufficient competent evidence to support the finding made by the Unemployment Compensation Board to the effect that she and her husband owned eighty per cent of the stock of the company and were in control of its corporate activities. Therefore, this finding of the board must be sustained. Progress Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 Pa. 163, 176 A. 2d 632.

The evidence would justify a finding that George Basila was a skilled artisan in masonry work, that based on his skill he and the claimant had conducted a contracting business from their home for many years until June 27, 1961, when they incorporated “For income tax and other general tax purposes”; and that thereafter they continued the conduct of the business in the same manner although under the new corporate name. The record is vague and uncertain as to the total number of shares issued by the new corporation, only six or seven shares are accounted for. All of the shares are held either by claimant or her husband or other close relations, and have been transferred among themselves without any evidence of contribution of capital by the relatives to whom shares may have been transferred.

In such cases it was permissible for the unemployment compensation authorities to pierce the corporate veil in order to determine the true ownership of the corporation. DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 612, 177 A. 2d 20; Hamburg Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 598, 162 A. 2d 55.

The facts found by the compensation authorities being amply supported by the evidence and the law properly applied, its decision must be affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.2d 155, 200 Pa. Super. 500, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basila-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack