Opinion
March 20, 1962.
April 12, 1962.
Unemployment Compensation — Self-employment — Unemployment — Ignoring corporate entity — Seasonal business unremunerative during period of claim for benefits — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. The corporate entity may be ignored in determining whether a claimant was, in fact, "unemployed" under the Unemployment Compensation Law, or was a self-employed person whose business merely proved to be unremunerative during the period for which the claim for benefits was made.
2. In this case, it was Held that the mere fact that a landscaping business was operated on a seasonal basis and consequently the business was unable to continue paying claimant's wages during the claim weeks in question was not sufficient to remove claimant from the classification of a self-employed person, considering that he was president and part owner of the company from which he alleged he was laid off.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 68, Oct. T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-66891-B, in re claim of Luciano DiGregorio. Decision affirmed.
Abraham N. Bassman, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued March 20, 1962.
This is an appeal from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which held the appellant to be ineligible for unemployment compensation under section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(h), because the appellant was self-employed at the time he filed his application for benefits, the application therefore being invalid within the meaning of section 401(c) as defined in section 4(w)(1) of the Law.
The facts in this case are similar to those in Roccograndi Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Super. 372, 178 A.2d 786, and the law applicable thereto has been enunciated in DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 612, 177 A.2d 20, where it was held that the corporate entity may be ignored in determining whether the claimants, in fact, were "unemployed" under the act, or were self-employed persons whose business merely proved to be unremunerative during the period for which the claim for benefits was made. In the present case, the mere fact that the landscaping business was operated on a seasonal basis and consequently was unable to continue paying appellant's wages during the claim weeks in question was not sufficient to remove appellant from the classification of a self-employed person, considering that he was and is president and part owner of the company from which he alleged he was laid off.
Order affirmed.