Hammond v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission

142 S.E.2d 876, 246 S.C. 121, 1965 S.C. LEXIS 189
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJune 14, 1965
Docket18359
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 S.E.2d 876 (Hammond v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hammond v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, 142 S.E.2d 876, 246 S.C. 121, 1965 S.C. LEXIS 189 (S.C. 1965).

Opinion

Taylor, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs brought this action against the South Carolina Employment Security Commission seeking an injunction [123]*123against the assessment of unemployment compensation tax on the commission earnings of real estate salesmen engaged by plaintiffs and an Order requiring the refund of $548.99 in unemployment compensation taxes already paid, under protest, upon the remuneration of salesmen associated with plaintiffs between January 1, 1961, and April 1, 1962.

An answer and return were filed by defendant admitting plaintiffs had paid the amount in taxes under protest and that a demand for the return thereof had been refused. Defendant further alleged that the commission earnings paid to the real estate salesmen by plaintiffs constituted taxable wages under the definitions contained in the Unemployment Compensation Law.

This matter came to be heard before the Honorable Jack Wright, Special Judge for the Equity Court of Rich-land County, who in his Decree of May 20, 1964, required defendant to refund to plaintiffs the taxes assessed against them together with interest.

The sole question raised by this appeal is whether or not the commissions disbursed to real estate salesmen by plaintiffs were subject to the imposition of the unemployment compensation tax as having been paid as wages for services performed in employment covered by the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Law.

The question presented is a novel one in this State, and the decisions from other states which have passed on the question are in hopeless conflict. In 1962 the Legislature amended the exempted employment section so as to specifically exclude real estate salesmen from the provisions of the Act. Section 68-25 (14.1) Cumulative Supplement, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962. However, in determining this appeal the law in force at the time the taxes were collected must control.

The pertinent provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law are as follows :

[124]*124“Section 68-22. Wages.- — (1) ‘Wages’ means all remuneration paid for personal services, including commissions and bonuses. * *
“Section 68-14. Employmen t. — (1) ‘Employment’ means service, including service in interstate commerce, performed for wages or under contract of hire, written or oral, expressed or implied. * * *
“(5) Services performed by an individual for wages shall be deemed to be employment subject to this Title unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that :
“(a) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services both under his contract of service and in fact;
“(b) Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed or such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
“(c) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.”

Plaintiffs, a partnership, conduct a business consisting of the brokerage of real estate and the handling and management of rental real estate property. Their place of business has a reception room, several offices, a book for listing of property placed with them for sale, several telephones, and two or three clerks employed. The rental business is handled by the partners together with the clerks and certain personnel employed for this purpose. All partners solicit the listing of real estate for sale upon commission and also engage in the sale thereof; and in addition thereto, the partnership has agreements with various individuals to participate in the sale of the real estate, and it is these individuals who have heretofore been referred to as real estate salesmen. The agreements with these real estate salesmen are oral, and the basic terms of the agreements are that [125]*125the salesmen receive half the commission paid by any landowner for the sale of property listed with plaintiffs which they sell. All matters appertaining to the collection of the commission from the landowners upon consummation of a sale are handled solely by plaintiff. Payment by the vendor to plaintiff is a prerequisite to the payment by plaintiffs to a salesman of his portion of the sales commission. This is the salesman’s sole compensation, and plaintiffs have no responsibility therefor except to deliver to the salesman his proportionate share. If a sale is not completed and the landowner pays no commission, the salesman receives nothing. Plaintiffs receive the other half of the commission paid by any landowner in return for procuring listing of the property, advertising of same and furnishing the salesmen office space and telephone service in the office, if desired by the salesmen. The agreement is for no definite period and is terminable at will by either party. The salesmen may keep any hours they wish, devoting as little or as much time to selling as they may wish, and engage in any other work, except that they cannot practice their profession or occupation as real estate salesmen by selling property for other brokers without plaintiffs’ consent. Plaintiffs purchase and keep in effect the license required by law for real estate brokers and each salesman purchases his individual license for the sale of real estate, and pays the cost thereof himself.

Under the agreement with the salesmen, the salesmen furnish their own transportation and pay all the expenses of their respective occupations or professions as real estate salesmen. No advances are made against unearned future commissions, no Social Security, federal withholding or state income tax are deducted from the commissions of the salesmen by the plaintiffs and no vacation pay, or any remuneration other than the commissions earned by the salesmen is provided. The salesmen can, if they desire, make use of the office space and telephone provided by the plaintiffs without charge, and may list plaintiffs’ telephone [126]*126number in their names in the telephone directory. Contracts by salesmen with prospective purchasers are made as often from the salesmen’s homes and other outside phones as they are from the phones in the office of the plaintiffs. The contract for sale and purchase of property is negotiated exclusively by the salesmen, usually outside the office of plaintiffs and normally signed away from plaintiffs’ offices. The salesmen have the right to agree to a closing date for any sale without obtaining the prior approval of plaintiffs. The salesmen usually attend closing of the sales made, which generally take place in the office of a building and loan association, a lawyer, or a bank, and not in the offices of plaintiffs. In the conduct of business between plaintiffs and the salesmen, the plaintiffs do not control or direct the salesmen in their activity or method of making a sale, and they are not required to call on any particular prospect or prospects. Each salesman determines which property he will attempt to sell or for which he thinks he has a prospect and proceeds to accomplish the sale in the manner he feels best. The salesmen are not subject to orders of plaintiffs at any time. Salesmen are not required to obtain listings or property for sale.

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

Related

H. J. Bernard Realty Co. v. Director of Employment Security
248 A.2d 245 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 S.E.2d 876, 246 S.C. 121, 1965 S.C. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-south-carolina-employment-security-commission-sc-1965.