Opinion
June 12, 1963.
September 12, 1963.
Unemployment Compensation — Employment of father by sons — Piercing corporate veil — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that the stock of the corporate employer was owned by claimant's two sons and his nephew in equal shares, and the shareholders were the officers of the corporation, it was Held that the unemployment compensation authorities properly concluded that claimant had been employed by his sons and was therefore not qualified for compensation, in view of § 4 (1) (4) (4) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
2. In unemployment compensation cases, it is permissible to pierce the corporate veil to determine the true nature of the claimant's employment.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 182, Oct. T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-76723, in re claim of Alfredo Carbone. Decision affirmed.
Alfred J. Tagliaferri, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued June 12, 1963.
The claimant in this unemployment compensation case was employed by Carbone Brothers, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania corporation. The stock of the corporation was owned by the claimant's two sons and his nephew in three equal shares. One son was president of the corporation, the other son was vice-president and the nephew was secretary-treasurer.
Section 4 (l)(4)(4) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 753 (l)(4)(4) provides, "The word `employment' shall not include — . . . (4) Service performed by an individual in the employ of his son, . . ." By piercing the corporate veil, the bureau, the referee and the board concluded that the claimant had been employed by his sons and was therefore not qualified for compensation.
It was permissible to pierce the corporate veil to determine the true nature of the claimant's employment. Hamburg Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Super. 598, 162 A.2d 55 (1960); Murray Unemployment Compensation Case, 193 Pa. Super. 464, 466, 165 A.2d 273 (1960); DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 612, 177 A.2d 20 (1961); DiGregorio Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Super. 562, 179 A.2d 665 (1962); Basila Unemployment Compensation Case, 200 Pa. Super. 500, 501, 190 A.2d 155 (1963).
Decision affirmed.