Case Name: In the Matter of the Tax Rate Assessment of: R. M. WADE & COMPANY, WADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NORTHWEST MARINE IRON WORKS, ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO., ASTRO TOOL COMPANY, INC. NORTHWEST MARINE IRON WORKS et al, Petitioners, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1985-12-04
Citations: 76 Or. App. 701
Docket Number: TR-84-5, TR-84-6, TR-84-7, TR-84-8, TR-84-9; CA A32927
Parties: In the Matter of the Tax Rate Assessment of: R. M. WADE & COMPANY, WADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NORTHWEST MARINE IRON WORKS, ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO., ASTRO TOOL COMPANY, INC. NORTHWEST MARINE IRON WORKS et al, Petitioners, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 76
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 7,
reversed and remanded December 4, 1985
In the Matter of the Tax Rate Assessment of: R. M. WADE & COMPANY, WADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NORTHWEST MARINE IRON WORKS, ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO., ASTRO TOOL COMPANY, INC. NORTHWEST MARINE IRON WORKS et al, Petitioners, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, Respondent.
(TR-84-5, TR-84-6, TR-84-7, TR-84-8, TR-84-9; CA A32927)
710 P2d 159
Pamela Grace Rapp, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the brief were Eric A. Lindenauer, and Garvey, Schubert, Adams & Barer, Portland.
Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this unemployment insurance tax case, petitioners seek review of a referee's decision which held that the Employment Division was not equitably estopped from assessing the unemployment tax against petitioners at 7 percent, the applicable tax rate under the provisions of the shared work statute. See Or Laws 1982, Special Session, ch 2. We conclude that petitioners satisfied any requirement of reasonable inquiry. Therefore, we reverse and remand. See Employment Div. v. Western Graphics Corp., 76 Or App 608, 710 P2d 788 (1985).
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.