If reimbursable financing has the disadvantage of not being able to protest all claim charges, why shouldn governmental or non profit employers elect to pay the tax instead?
Reimbursing employers must reimburse the state dollar-for-dollar for the benefits paid to their former workers. Tax-paying employers, on the other hand, may pay a “social” penalty which exceeds the state’s actual costs. In other words, the employers at higher tax rates subsidize those at lower tax rates. Disclaimer: The information contained in the examples given on this page is general in nature and is not intended as legal advice. There are no guarantees that a particular state unemployment adjudicator will rule as others have in the cited examples. Individuals seeking legal advice concerning the handling of similar matters should consult with their attorney, rather than relying upon the information given. The purpose of this document is to educate clients and potential clients about unemployment compensation. While some effort has been made to address the many differences in laws and procedures in the 53 different jurisdictions (each of the fifty states plus Puerto Rico, Washington
Related Questions
- It depends. If reimbursable financing has the disadvantage of not being able to protest all claim charges, why shouldn’t governmental or qualifying non-profit employers elect to pay the tax instead?
- If reimbursable financing has the disadvantage of not being able to protest all claim charges, why shouldn governmental or non profit employers elect to pay the tax instead?
- If I have a contract with one of the merchant partners that allow me to receive special pricing and no shipping charges, will I still be able to earn Partner Points?
