Department of Employment v. Kasum Communications

544 P.2d 1142, 97 Idaho 372, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 274
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1976
DocketNo. 11606
StatusPublished

This text of 544 P.2d 1142 (Department of Employment v. Kasum Communications) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Department of Employment v. Kasum Communications, 544 P.2d 1142, 97 Idaho 372, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 274 (Idaho 1976).

Opinion

McFADDEN, Justice.

Kasum Communications, Inc. (hereinafter “Kasum”), appealed to this court from an order of the Industrial Commission holding that the entire amount of the commissions which Kasum paid its collectors of delinquent accounts was wages for unemployment insurance purposes. We reverse.

Kasum engages in the business of composing, producing, and selling commercial advertising and publishing periodicals of various types. The appellant employs collectors to collect delinquent accounts receivable. The written employment contract between Kasum and each collector provides for a compensation of nine percent of the gross amount collected on the accounts assigned to that employee. The contract provides that the commission includes the reasonable business expenses which the employee incurs in collecting the delinquent accounts. The agreement finally specifies that the collector is to file weekly expense reports on forms and pursuant to guidelines provided by Kasum. If the collector does not file a weekly expense report, the employment contract provides that Kasum can treat the entire commission for the week as income to the collector and can make all deductions from the week’s commission on that basis.

The appellant also had adopted a procedure manual, portions of which elaborate upon the business expenses of the collectors. Referring to the business expenses 'contemplated in the employment contract, the manual directs a weekly report of daily travel expenses, for tax purposes, and specifies the types of expenses which a collector can record and submit on such a weekly report. The travel expenses include lodging, meals, tips, parking, bridge and road tolls, taxi and auto rental fees, telephone calls, and business mileage at the rate of nine cents per mile. The manual continues: “Total expenses approved will be deducted from your gross earnings and federal income tax payable will be calculated on the remaining balance. Such expenses are not reimbursable; this report as stated above, is for tax purposes only.” By characterizing these weekly business [373]*373expenses as not being reimbursable, the procedure manual distinguishes them from a second group of business expenses which are submitted monthly and are reimbursable over and above the nine percent commission. These reimbursable expenses include postage required to mail business-related material, money orders and cashier check fees, supplies, maps, and mileage in excess of 500 miles when a collector travels between assignments. Only the weekly reports are at issue in this case; the monthly expense vouchers are not.

When a collector submits a weekly travel expense report, Kasum deducts the amount of the expenses from the collector’s gross commissions, and then computes the various withholding items, such as taxes and social security contributions, on the balance. Employment security contributions also are computed and paid the Department of Employment on the balance. The collector then is paid the commission less the various payroll deductions. The collector is paid by a single check, and the amounts of the commissions, deductions, and expenses are separately identified and itemized by the appellant at that time.

The Department of Employment issued a determination which held that the total amount of commissions, including the amount reported on weekly expense reports, must be considered wages for unemployment insurance purposes. The Industrial Commission affirmed the decision of its Referee and the Appeals Examiner of the Department of Employment, ordering and adjudging that the entire commission must be considered wages for employment security contributions.

The concept of “wages” furnishes the basis for the operation of the Idaho Employment Security Law. The employment security tax is a percentage of the wages paid by the employer during each calendar year. I.C. §§ 72-1349 — 1351. Previous wages also determine the amount of benefits which an.employee will receive when unemployed. I.C. §§ 72-1366, 1367. The Idaho Code defines wages to include “all remuneration for personal services from whatever source, including commissions * * *.” I.C. § 72-1328(a). Wages do not include the amounts paid to employees as allowance or reimbursement for reasonable and ordinary expenses actually incurred in the business of the employer and accounted for by the employee in an itemized statement to the employer, when the employer’s records clearly differentiate between the employee’s wages and the business expenses. Idaho Department of Employment, Employer Accounts Policy and Procedure Manual, Part I, 1100A.7. (1966) ;1 Idaho Industrial Accident Board, Interpretations Relating to Idaho Unemployment Compensation Law 16(C)c (1936).2 The provisions of the Idaho Em[374]*374ployment Security Law also are based upon and intimately connected with the provisions of related Federal laws. I.C. § 72-1302(b). Federal regulations enunciate essentially the same requirements for an expense deduction from gross commissions in computing wages for employment tax purposes. Rev.Rul. 55-196, 1955-1 Cum.Bull. 492;3 Employment Tax Regulations, 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401 (a)-l (b)(2).4

The employment arrangement between Kasum and its collectors meets the state and federal regulatory requirements for the expense payments to be deducted from the total commission in calculating the wages upon which the appellant is' to pay the employment security tax. The employment contract between the appellant and its collectors specifically indicates that some portion of the employee’s gross commission will be considered reimbursement for business expenses, when computing the employee’s withholding, social security, and unemployment taxes. The amount deducted when Kasum computes those taxes represents the reasonable expenses actually, ordinarily, and necessarily incurred in the conduct of Kasum’s business. Finally, the stubs of the collector’s commission checks specifically differentiate between the amounts for business expenses and wages.

The conclusion that a collector’s wages do not include the amount of the commission attributable to expenses finds support in decisions of other states. In Motion Pictures Advertising Service Co. v. Sharp, 101 So.2d 456 (La.Ct.App., 1958), the identical issue concerning the computation of [375]*375wages for employees paid on a commission basis was considered, and that court concluded :

“It certainly appears to this Court that the term ‘wages’ would not include validly incurred expenses which the Agency requires be submitted in duly certified form. We feel to hold otherwise would entail undue hardship to certain businesses which operate on a commission basis, out of which commission the employee pays his own business expenses.”

Id. at 458. See Panther Creek Mines, Inc. v. Murphy, 390 Ill. 23, 60 N.E.2d 217 (1945); Shelley v. Nat'l Carbon Co., 285 Ky. 502, 148 S.W.2d 686 (1941).

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

Related

Panther Creek Mines, Inc. v. Murphy
60 N.E.2d 217 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1945)
Shelley v. National Carbon Co.
148 S.W.2d 686 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Motion Pictures Advertising Service Co. v. Sharp
101 So. 2d 456 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
544 P.2d 1142, 97 Idaho 372, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-employment-v-kasum-communications-idaho-1976.