SCOTT S JOHNSTON, Employee

LIGHTED PATH LLC, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 3 of 2003 and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week quitting and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed August 28, 2003
johnssc . usd : 164 : 1   VL 1054.09

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

In his petition for commission review the employee argues that, although his business was organized as a limited liability company, it should be treated as a corporation for UI purposes. The employee points out that he filed a Form 8832 election with the internal revenue service to be treated as a corporation for tax purposes. He contends that there is no practical distinction between a corporation and a limited liability company that makes a Form 8832 corporation entity election. The commission has considered this argument, but does not find it persuasive. Although the employee filed a corporate entity election with the Internal Revenue Service, this does not change the fact that his business is organized in the State of Wisconsin as a limited liability company, not a corporation. For UI purposes, the business is considered to be a limited liability company. The fact that the statute contains specific provisions that apply exclusively to limited liability companies indicates that the legislature considered them to be separate entities and did not contemplate treating them the same as corporations. Consequently, the commission declines to apply the statutory provisions pertaining to family corporations to the separation in this case.

The employee was the sole proprietor of a business and quit his job when, in his capacity as owner of the business, he made the decision to dissolve the business. While it is clear from the record that the decision to dissolve was made for valid business reasons, it was nonetheless undertaken voluntarily. The statute does not authorize the payment of benefits under these circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

cc: Attorney Elizabeth Winters

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2003/09/02