By Payroll and Entitlements Editorial Staff
The claimant, a corporate president for a company that owned a restaurant, filled in as needed on various jobs. Because business was seasonal, the claimant chose to close down the restaurant for two straight winters and file for benefits, claiming that he had not received wages or performed services as a corporate officer. Based on the claimant's admission that he was a corporate officer, and had received wages from the corporation, the Commission determined that the state law provision limiting benefits for workers who also serve as corporate officers applied. The plain language of that provision pertains to any wages earned from a corporation in which the corporate officer has an ownership interest and does not distinguish between how those wages were earned. The Commission’s determination that the claimant was ineligible for benefits was supported by substantial and competent evidence and the denial of benefits was affirmed (Brett L. Woolley v. Bridge St. Inc. and DOL, Ida. Sup. Ct., No. 46743, April 16, 2020).
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More