Carl J. Greco, P.C. a/k/a Greco Law Associates, P.C., Petitioner
Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services, Respondent
Argued: December 7, 2017
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E.
COVEY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
Greco, P.C. a/k/a Greco Law Associates, P.C. (Greco PC) seeks
review of a final decision of the Department of Labor and
Industry (Department). The Department denied a petition for
reassessment of unemployment compensation (UC) taxes under
the Unemployment Compensation Law (UC Law). The Department
concluded that payments from Greco PC to its sole shareholder
and officer, Carl J. Greco, Esquire (Attorney Greco), were
subject to UC taxation based on Attorney Greco's service
as a corporate officer. Upon review, we affirm.
PC is a statutory S corporation. Greco PC is an employer
under the UC Law. Attorney Greco is Greco PC's sole
shareholder, officer, and director. He has sole control over
all business activities. He decides what clients to accept,
what fees to charge, and what employees to hire and fire.
Greco does not collect a salary. Both he and Greco PC have
characterized all payments from Greco PC to Attorney Greco as
net profit distributions to him as sole shareholder. Greco PC
did not pay UC taxes on the distributions to Attorney Greco.
an audit, the Pennsylvania Office of Unemployment
Compensation Tax Services (UC Tax Services) reclassified
Attorney Greco as an employee for UC tax purposes and
assessed UC taxes on Greco PC's distributions to him.
Greco PC filed a petition for reassessment, which the parties
submitted to the Department for a decision on briefs.
Department issued a final decision denying the petition for
reassessment. The Department focused its analysis on Attorney
Greco's status as an officer of Greco PC. The Department
apparently did not dispute that both Greco PC and Attorney
Greco characterized the monies at issue as distributions of
net profits. Nevertheless, it concluded that as an officer,
Attorney Greco is an employee for UC tax purposes.
PC filed a timely petition for review with this Court.
appeal,  Greco PC presents four related issues for
review, which we paraphrase as follows: (1) the
Department's findings are not supported by substantial
evidence because the Department failed to find that Attorney
Greco is self-employed and not employed by Greco PC, and
because there is no evidence of a contract for hire between
Greco PC and Attorney Greco; (2) the Department committed
legal error in concluding that Attorney Greco was an employee
and that Greco PC's distributions to him were made with
respect to employment; (3) the Department committed legal
error in assessing UC taxes in light of Attorney Greco's
ineligibility for UC benefits; and, (4) the Department
committed legal error by relying on federal employment tax
laws to support its analysis under the UC Law.
Greco PC's arguments are closely related, we address them