Opinion ID: 2352860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questions Concerning The Facts.

Text: The lower court, at the hearing before it, refused to permit a witness for the appellant to express an opinion concerning the irregularity of the proceedings before the hearing officer. The court also sustained an objection to a question aimed at ascertaining whether the field representative of the department (G. Calvin Whiteley) was an officer or committee member in any political organization or whether he was a candidate for any elective office. Since both questions were clearly irrelevant to the subject of the appeal, the rulings of the court were proper. The appellant claims that the actions of the D.E.S. were unwarranted, overzealous, prejudicial, fraudulent and capricious. Even if these contentions are properly before us, there is no evidence to support them and they are based only on those things the appellant (without legal justification) disapproved of or found fault with concerning the lawful actions of the executive director, the field representative, the hearing officer and other persons constituting the personnel of the department, as well as the chairman and executive secretary of the board of appeals and the general counsel to the department. None appears to have any real bearing on whether the finding of fact was supported by the evidence or whether there was fraud. The claim of prejudice was based only on the charge of the appellant that the department had already made up its mind that he was liable for the tax. The claim of fraud was based only on his assertion that the notice of hearing to discover whether there was coverage was fraudulent because it purported to be a petition by the appellant when in fact it had been initiated by the department. Both of these claims, as were those merely asserting without more that the actions of the department officials and employees were unwarranted, overzealous and capricious, were clearly without merit. It was the duty of the department to establish if it could that the employer had one or more persons in his employ performing services for him. The burden of proving that such services as were rendered were not in covered employment was on the appellant. It is further contended that the lower court erred when it applied the statutory tests (which will presently be discussed) to the employees of the appellant. Apparently the claim is  since he contends that the associates were not hired for wages but shared in the profits and losses  that he was not an employer. However, since the appellant admits that he was the only registered surveyor involved, it is clear that the lower court, in applying the tests as it was bound to do, correctly pointed out in its opinion (a) that those who helped him with the surveying projects had to be under his direction and control; (b) that the services performed for him by others were in furtherance of, and not outside of, the usual course of his business; and (c) that there was nothing in the records (either before the hearing officer, the board of appeals or the lower court) to indicate that the persons who were performing services for the appellant were customarily engaged in independently established occupations of the same nature as surveying. The next to the last contention as to the facts, that the opinion of the lower court is contrary to the facts, also lacks substance. Regardless of whether the appellant commenced business in 1951 or later, he admits that he testified before the board that he had done survey work for many years. And, even though the 1958 income tax return of the appellant was introduced as evidence to show that he had associates there was no reason why the board could not deduce from that fact  since he had taken credit for payments made to them for services rendered  that such associates were in covered employment. Finally, even if the question is before us, the record does not disclose that the claimed delay in requesting amended reports for the four quarters of 1958 was in any way prejudicial to the appellant.