Several states have already announced changes to their unemployment taxable wage bases for 2011:

                                                                                          2010                         2011

                                       Indiana                                 $7,000                     $9,500

                                       Mississippi                           $7,000                   $14,000

                                       Nevada                               $27,000                   $26,600

                                       New Hampshire               $10,000                    $12,000

                                       New Jersey                        $29,700                   $29,600

                                       New Mexico                      $20,800                    $21,900

                                       South Carolina                    $7,000                   $10,000

                                       South Dakota                    $10,000                    $11,000

                                       Vermont                             $10,000                    $13,000

                                       Washington                       $36,800                   $37,300

With respect to California, we expect tax rates to trend 10% higher even though the same tax rate table is scheduled to be in effect for 2011.  The statewide adjustment factors will continue to have a significant and negative impact on tax rates, by reducing each experience-rated company’s reserve account balance.  In particular, the adjustment factor for “increase in the total of all negative reserve account balances” will remain exceptionally high, often exceeding a company’s own benefit charges resulting from claims.

With respect to Florida, legislation signed early this year authorizes an employer assessment to pay the interest due on federal advances to the UI trust fund.  Florida has an outstanding federal advance of over $1.6 billion, so we expect that interest will be payable next year, although there is a chance that federal legislation will suspend interest payments.  Barring such federal legislation, a committee will estimate the interest due for 2011 and the assessment will be made no later than February 1, 2011.  More information should become available as the year progresses.

With respect to Georgia, the statutes mandate that the same tax rate table must be used in 2011.  However, we expect modest increases in Georgia tax rates because the “Base Rate Adjustment Factor” will likely increase from 30% to 35%.  This means that tax rates which are 130% of the “base” tax rates for 2010 will likely be 135% of the base tax rates for 2011.  The Base Rate Adjustment Factor is a mechanism for increasing tax rates when the UI trust fund is low, but this factor is capped at 35% for 2011.  Expect this to result in 5% to 10% increases in tax payments.

With respect to Hawaii, tax rate schedule D is in effect for 2010 and tax rate schedule F (which contains higher tax rates) will take effect, by statute, for 2011.  Tax rates in schedule D range from 0.20% to 5.40% and tax rates in schedule F range from 1.20% to 5.40%.  For employers with a positive reserve account balance, schedule F adds an additional 1.00% to the tax rate in each rate bracket.  The percentage of increase will be significant (anywhere from 33% increase to 600% increase, depending on the rate bracket).

With respect to Illinois, we expect tax rates to trend 15% higher because of anticipated increases in the State Experience Factor and the Fund Building Rate.  The federal loan to the Illinois UI trust fund has almost doubled since January, from approximately $1.2 billion to approximately $2.2 billion, so an increase in both adjustment factors is inevitable.  The State Experience Factor could increase from 107% to 124% and the Fund Building Rate may increase from 0.45% to 0.55% (the maximum possible increases).

With respect to Indiana, the impact of the increase in the taxable wage base (from $7,000 to $9,500) will be mitigated by a more favorable tax rate table for 2011.  We expect the net result to be favorable (lower tax payments) for employers in the lowest rate brackets and unfavorable (higher tax payments) for employers in the highest rate brackets.

With respect to Massachusetts, we expect that a much higher tax rate table will take effect in 2011.  Legislation signed in February prevented the highest possible tax rate table (schedule G) from triggering into effect for 2010, and specified that schedule E is applicable for this year.  Barring additional legislation, we would expect schedule G to take effect in 2011.  The impact of the higher rate schedule is graduated.  You can increase your current tax rate by 25% to estimate the comparable tax rate on schedule G.

With respect to Nevada, we anticipate that tax rates for 2011 will be higher in general.  The Commissioner has the authority to change the array of employers assigned to each tax rate bracket, or “class,” based on certain risk ratios.  The risk ratios are determined as of September 30 each year, impacting on the rate classes for the following year.  Last year on September 30 the Nevada UI trust fund did not have an outstanding federal loan, but now there is a loan of approximately $490 million.  This is clear evidence that the risk ratios have deteriorated.  The result will be that more employers will shift to higher tax rate brackets.

With respect to New Mexico, tax rate schedule O is in effect for 2010 and tax rate schedule 1 will take effect, by statute, for 2011.  In schedule 1, an additional 0.30% will be added to the tax rate for most rate brackets.  This means that tax payments will be 33% higher in the lowest rate bracket (increasing from 0.90% to 1.20%), and in the range of 10% higher for most employers.

With respect to Texas, the UI trust fund currently has borrowed $1.3 billion in federal funds, which inevitably will result in future costs.  The Texas Workforce Commission intends to work with the Texas Public Finance Authority to issue bonds to fund the deficit and retire the federal loan.  One advantage of this course of action is to avoid a FUTA tax rate increase for Texas employers.  This strategy worked quite effectively in 2004-2007.  During those years the deficit was repaid by bond proceeds, which eliminated the “deficit tax” component of Texas UI tax rates.  The addition of an “unemployment obligation assessment rate” partially offset the removal of the “deficit tax” component, but the net result was to reduce and spread out the costs.  If something prevents the bond issuance, we would expect Texas tax rates to increase, in general, because the deficit tax rate will clearly increase.

With respect to federal unemployment taxes, employers in Indiana, Michigan, and South Carolina can expect increased FUTA taxes for 2010 unless their outstanding federal UI loans are repaid by November 10, 2010 (which is unlikely).  We expect that the net FUTA tax rate for Michigan employers will increase from 1.10% to 1.40%, and the net FUTA tax rate for Indiana and South Carolina employers will increase from 0.80% to 1.10%.  If this happens, as expected, the additional tax deposits for 2010 will be payable by January 31, 2011.

For employers in the following jurisdictions, the net FUTA tax rate will increase for 2011 if the state’s trust fund loans are not repaid by November 10, 2011:

                                                      Anticipated                                                  Anticipated
                                                  2011 FUTA Rate                                          2011 FUTA Rate

                           Alabama                 1.10%                         Nevada                        1.10%

                           Arkansas                1.10%                         New Jersey                  1.10%                                       

                           California               1.10%                         New York                     1.10%

                           Connecticut           1.10%                         North Carolina            1.10%

                           Florida                    1.10%                         Ohio                              1.10%

                           Georgia                  1.10%                         Pennsylvania               1.10%

                           Idaho                      1.10%                         Rhode Island               1.10%

                           Illinois                    1.10%                         South Carolina            1.40%

                           Indiana                  1.40%                         Texas                            1.10%

                           Kentucky                1.10%                         Virgin Islands              1.10%

                           Michigan                1.70%                         Virginia                        1.10%

                           Minnesota              1.10%                         Wisconsin                    1.10%

                           Missouri                 1.10%

With respect to the anticipated FUTA increases for 2011, the additional tax deposits consisting of the incremental 0.30% of taxable wages will be payable by January 31, 2012.

As an aside, August 14, 2010 marked the 75^th anniversary of the UI program, which appears to be every bit as relevant today as it was in 1935.  Unfortunately the combined balance of all state UI trust funds is now a negative number, and will remain so for several years.  The insolvency of the UI trust funds will put upward pressure on UI tax rates for 2011 and the foreseeable future.

Click here for a printable version.

Currently there is no time limit established in statute for requiring employers to respond to a notice of claim.  An employer may respond after benefits have already begun to be paid to the claimant.  This is considered new evidence pertinent to the initial determination, and a redetermination may be issued.  If the employer successfully contests the claim, any benefits that have been erroneously paid are not charged to the employer’s tax account.  Rather, such overpayments are recovered through an adjustment factor added to the UI tax rates, spreading the cost among all experience-rated employers who had benefit experience over the previous three years.  The employer that delays responding to notices of claims is not directly charged for the erroneous benefit payments caused by such late responses.

Effective July 1, 2010, this amendment establishes a twenty-day time limit for making a timely response to the notice of claim.  When an employer’s response is late, and when the late response results in erroneous benefit payments, such overpayments will be charged to the tax account of the employer that made the late response.  Further, a claimant will not be required to repay any overpayments due to the employer’s failure to respond, so long as there is no fraud involved.

Senate Bill 1736 will essentially protect those employers who are diligent in providing timely information from having to subsidize the unnecessary costs associated with slow responders.  The bill will also protect claimants from having to repay benefits received erroneously when the payments were the result of a late employer response.

As always, if there are any questions please contact us.

Click here for a printable version.

The unemployment taxable wage base will increase from $7,000 for 2010 to $10,000 for 2011, $12,000 for 2012, and $14,000 for 2015.  In other words, for each employee who is paid at least $14,000, your UI taxes will double by 2015, even if your tax rate is unchanged.

The formula for computing UI tax rates will change from a reserve ratio formula to a benefit ratio formula, which will react more quickly to changes in funding needs.  The prior reserve ratio formula took into account the entire history of a company’s tax payments and benefit charges resulting from UI claims.  The new formula, after a three-year transition period, will assign tax rates based on no more than the most recent three years of benefit experience.

By shortening the look-back period for computing rates, a rapid improvement or deterioration in economic conditions will result in more rapid decreases or increases in UI tax rates.  The downside to this tax scheme is that tax rates tend to rise when the state’s economy has been struggling in the recent past, and when the economy may still be struggling.  This increases the risk of assigning higher tax rates at the worst possible time for employers.

The South Carolina amendment also requires that a surcharge be imposed on all employers to pay the interest due on federal loans to the UI trust fund.  South Carolina currently has an outstanding federal loan of nearly $890 million.  Interest is not payable on this loan for 2010 but will be payable for 2011 unless additional federal legislation suspends the interest assessment again.

As always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Click here for a printable version.

We encourage you to check for any outstanding assessments, debit memoranda, or other statements of balance due from a state unemployment agency, and make any necessary payment by June 30.

If you need assistance in resolving an issue with a state UI agency, please do not hesitate to call us at (615) 242-8246 and ask for the Rate and Audit Department.

Click here for a printable version.

In this case (Michelle Parham v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Registration, et al), the claimant worked for Mid Atlantic Baking Company (not a client of our company) for less than three months.  She missed three days of work (March 5, April 11, and April 12).  On April 14 she returned to work.  The manager on duty, Barbara Wolferman, asked to see her.  The substance of this conversation, which is the heart of the matter, is disputed.  When the conversation ended, Ms. Parham left the building and did not contact Mid Atlantic again.

The initial claim determination approved the claim, holding that Ms. Parham had been discharged, and that insufficient information had been presented to show that her actions constituted misconduct in connection with the work.  The company appealed, and a hearing was conducted.  During the hearing, the company presented two witnesses:  the Human Resources Coordinator and the Plant Manager.  The Human Resources Coordinator, Erica Stokes, testified that Parham quit because she walked out without punching out on April 14^th, after the fateful meeting with Ms. Wolferman.  The Plant Manager, Donald Kauffman, testified that he learned of the incident on April 15^th.  He said:

[T]hat next day when I came to work, the 15^th, that’s when [Wolferman] had told me that [Parham] had come into work, and that she had words with her saying that she did not, you know, like what was, you know, she had discussed the absenteeism of the 11^th and 12^th with her, and she wasn’t happy with that.

So [Wolferman] wrote her up and wanted [Parham] to sign it.  She refused.  There’s no signature on the write-up.  She refused to sign it.  At that point, [Parham] had left the building.  She didn’t even punch out.  She just left the building and she was instructed that she needed to talk to me before she came back to work.

Parham’s testimony at the hearing directly contradicted Stokes and Kauffman’s testimony that she was told to call Kauffman.  Parham testified:

Barbara told me that I had to call out and Don said I couldn’t operate so she had to let me go.  So I just left.  What was I supposed to do – stand there and disrespect the lady or argue with her?  I had to leave the building.

She also stated, “No one told me to call anyone.  [Wolferman] just told me to leave the building.  That was that.”

The conversation between Parham and Wolferman is of singular importance.  Parham is present at the hearing, offering first-hand testimony.  Wolferman is not present at the hearing, so the company’s testimony  regarding the conversation is hearsay.  The court found that the company’s hearsay testimony that Wolferman told Parham to call the Plant Manager on April 14^th did not constitute competent, material, and substantial evidence.  Therefore, the court found that Parham was discharged, that no misconduct was established, and that the claim should be approved.

It would appear that Mid Atlantic shot itself in the foot by not presenting Barbara Wolferman as a witness at the hearing.  There may have been a good reason for Wolferman’s failure to attend, but it was never explained by the company.

There are several reasons why a first-hand witness does not testify at an unemployment hearing.  First, some companies have the mistaken point of view that a Human Resources representative should explain the company’s position and not involve other witnesses.  Secondly, it is not always obvious, except in hindsight, who the key witness will be, and not enough consideration is given to this before the hearing.  Thirdly, the key witness may have left the company or otherwise became unavailable by the time the hearing is conducted.  Further, the company officials may have the opinion that the key witness would be a liability at the hearing, because of inexperience, temperament, or other reasons.  Finally, there may be concern that testimony presented during the appeals hearing could be used against the company in some other matter, unrelated to the unemployment claim.  Some concerns may be legitimate, but the fact remains that Mid Atlantic lost the unemployment case because the first-hand witness was not present.

You may have to weigh the potential adverse consequences of having a particular person testify against the potential cost of an adverse hearing decision if the person does not testify.  In estimating the potential cost of an unemployment claim, first consider the potential benefit charges.  We can help you estimate the charges if the UI agency has not given you this information.  Secondly, you could estimate the total cost to the company, in terms of future UI tax payments, at 1.3 times the potential benefit charges.  Thus, a UI claim with potential benefit charges of $8,000 could increase the company’s future UI taxes by an estimated $10,400 over several years.

In the decision-making process, you should consider whether there was a pivotal final event that triggered the termination of the employee.  If so, you should anticipate that the hearing examiner’s decision will give such an event or incident great weight.  Don’t weaken your case by failing to offer the testimony of a first-hand witness unless other considerations outweigh the importance of the unemployment claim. 

In the Michelle Parham case, this person worked less than three months for Mid Atlantic, so their potential benefit charges were probably small and the impact on their UI taxes was probably limited.  Perhaps this was an inexpensive lesson.

Click here for a printable version.

The insolvency of the UI trust funds has put upward pressure on UI tax rates for 2010 and the foreseeable future.  The GAO report sums up the problem nicely.  For the last three decades UI benefits have remained largely unchanged relative to wages, but employer tax rates have declined relative to wages.  This calls into question the collective wisdom exhibited at the state level.  Clearly there has been inadequate forward funding, and the state UI trust funds were ill-prepared for the recent recession.  The implication of the report is that greater federal involvement or restrictions may be desirable.

The report discusses several possible courses of action for Congress.  At the top of the list is the possibility of increasing the FUTA taxable wage base, which has remained at $7,000 since 1983, and indexing the FUTA wage base to wages.  This could induce many states to raise and index their own taxable wage bases.  By statute, a state UI wage base may be no less than the FUTA wage base.

Even with no legislation, FUTA taxes can be expected to increase in the next couple of years.  For 2009, only Michigan employers incurred a FUTA tax increase of 0.30%, because of the outstanding loan to the Michigan UI trust fund.  For 2010, Indiana and South Carolina employers can expect a 0.30% FUTA increase, assuming their loans are not repaid by November 10, 2010.  Michigan employers can expect another incremental increase of 0.30% on top of the first increase, so the FUTA tax rate for Michigan employers is destined to be 1.40% (0.80% normal rate plus 0.60% credit reduction).  For 2011, twenty-five states may be subject to FUTA tax increases.

A scenario could develop over the next couple of years in which the FUTA wage base is increased and indexed, thereby prompting multiple states to increase and index their wage bases, and the FUTA tax rate starts ratcheting up in multiple states because of outstanding loans, such that these factors taken in combination may result in significantly higher SUI and FUTA tax outlays, even for an employer whose state unemployment tax rate is unchanged.

As always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Click here for a printable version.

The credit is the lesser of either: 

50% of the additional FUTA tax paid by an employer for the previous year.

OR

The employer’s taxable wages for the previous calendar year multiplied by the Nonchargeable Benefits Component (“NBC”) of the employer’s unemployment tax rate for that year.

The additional FUTA tax for 2009 was 0.30% of FUTA taxable wages (using a $7,000 taxable wage base), or $21 per full-time employee.  Fifty percent of this (0.15%) would be $10.50 per full-time employee.  For most employers this would be the smaller of the two calculations, and the limit on the tax credit. 

To qualify for this credit, an employer must meet all of the following requirements:

• Has applied for the state tax credit and has paid Michigan unemployment taxes for five years or more and has a tax rate for the year of the Michigan tax credit (2009).
• Has a positive reserve ending balance in its unemployment experience account as of June 30, 2008.
• Has filed all required quarterly tax reports for the year prior to the year of the credit.
• Has paid additional FUTA taxes on IRS Form 940, to the IRS no later than December 31, 2010.
• Has paid FUTA taxes prior to submitting the Michigan tax credit application.
• Has certified the amount of additional 2009 FUTA taxes paid when it applies for the credit.  

Please note that the Actual Reserve and NBC on your 2009 tax rate determination must be greater than zero and you must have filed all required quarterly tax reports for 2009.  If you are unsure of your Actual Reserve and/or NBC, or would like assistance in determining if you are eligible for this credit, please contact our office and we will be glad help. 

You may apply for the credit through the UIA Employer Web Account Manager (“EWAM”) at www.michigan.gov/uia or by completing Form UIA 1110, “Application for Michigan Unemployment Tax Credit”.  Both application options are currently available on EWAM and we have attached a copy of Form 1110 to this bulletin for your convenience.  Please note that if you submit your application for this credit prior to June 1, 2010, you will be permitted to use the credit when filing your second quarter 2010 Michigan unemployment tax return. 

Click here for a printable version.  As always, please contact us if there are any questions.

First, as a reminder, the taxable wage base has increased from $23,700 in 2009 to $24,500 for 2010.

Effective April 1, 2010, the UI account number format has been revised for all Iowa employers.  Although similar, your new account number will contain zeros at the beginning to make (8) digits and will drop the check digit after the dash.  For example, if your current account number is 123456-7, your new account number will be 00123456.  As another example, if your current account number is 001234-5, your new account number will be 00001234.

In addition, starting with the upcoming quarter, “My Iowa UI” Online Tax System will replace the Unemployment Insurance Tax System (UITS) which is currently in operation.  Click here for a notice from the Iowa Workforce Development providing additional information regarding this system and other recent UI tax changes.

As always, please contact us if there are any questions.

Click here for a printable version.

To understand what has happened to UI tax rates in 2010 it is helpful to revisit 1980.  The country slipped into a recession that year, came out of it, and then slipped back into a deeper and longer recession in 1981.  Many jobs were lost and the first major systemic problem for the unemployment insurance program was upon us.

During this time I found myself toiling away in the drafty old Cordell Hull Building in Nashville, putting together a legislative proposal to shore up the Tennessee Unemployment Trust Fund, which was rapidly becoming depleted.  Tennessee was not alone.  By the end of 1981, seventeen states had borrowed federal funds totaling more than $6 billion because their trust funds were broke.

Spurred by this crisis, the U.S. Department of Labor, which provides support to the state unemployment agencies, became active during the early 1980’s in helping these agencies determine an adequate solvency level.  The goal was to maintain adequate reserves to cover benefit payouts and also provide a cushion for when the benefit payouts were higher than normal.  This would be accomplished by refining the assignment of UI tax rates so that a funding shortfall as in 1980/81 would never occur again.  A test was developed for assessing the solvency of a state trust fund, called the “High Cost Multiple,” and many states attempted to incorporate this solvency measure, or something similar, into their tax scheme.

In the 1990’s, the High Cost Multiple was modified and the recommended solvency measure became the Average High Cost Multiple.  Ideally, the Average High Cost Multiple should have a value of 1.00 in “normal” times.  A state law could incorporate automatic triggers to increase or decrease employer tax rates, depending on the divergence from the recommended solvency level.  The U.S. Department of Labor tracked this statistic (and still does) and made it available to all state agencies.

With the passage of time, this tool became disregarded.  Political motivation entered into decisions to reduce UI tax rates in several states, and to provide for zero percent tax rates in some cases.  California (roughly 20% of the U.S. economy) enacted legislation to increase the maximum weekly benefit amount by $100, without any corresponding increase in taxes.  California now has an outstanding UI loan of approximately $8 billion.

By the end of 2007 the Average High Cost Multiple for all states combined was 0.52%; substantially below the recommended solvency level (see Chart 1).  Of course each state law is different, and some states were more solvent than others.  However, no alarm bells were sounding.  In aggregate, UI tax rate assignments drifted even lower for 2008.  The average tax rate (as a percent of taxable wages) decreased from 2.48% in 2007 to 2.32% for 2008.  As a percent of total wages, the average tax rate decreased from 0.69% to 0.63%.  The increased sophistication of tax rate assignments, prompted by the 1980/81 solvency issues, had become inadequate.

In early 2008 the Texas Workforce Commission informed Texas employers that for the second year in a row they would be giving back funds to employers ($170 million that year) because the balance in the Texas Unemployment Trust Fund exceeded the statutory ceiling.  That was just about the end of the good news.  By June the loss of jobs had picked up pace, resulting in President Bush signing H.R. 2642, which established the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program for individuals who had exhausted their regular unemployment benefits.

Interestingly, UI tax rates did not trend higher for 2009 even though the recession was in full swing as the year began.  Clearly the state trust funds had been drawn down at a rapid pace in 2008.  Cumulative trust fund balances dropped from $38 billion at the end of 2007 to $30 billion at the end of 2008.  Over $12 billion in regular benefits were paid in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, compared to $7.9 billion for the fourth quarter of 2007.  The Michigan trust fund was already borrowing federal funds by the end of 2008.  Nevertheless, the average UI tax rate drifted still lower for 2009 (2.25% of taxable wages and 0.60% of total wages).

The ship had hit the iceberg in 2008, but UI tax rates were largely unaffected until 2010.  Of necessity, there was a lag between the onset of high benefit payouts and increases in tax rates.  Most (36) states use a computation date of June 30 to compute UI tax rates for the following calendar year.  An employer’s experience as of June 30 is used for computing the UI tax rates that take effect six months later.  During the six-month period from July through December of 2008 the loss of jobs was substantial and the payout of UI benefits was abnormally high, but this had little or no impact on 2009 tax rates in many states because the computation date had passed.  Of course, these post-June 30, 2008 claims are now included in 2010 tax rate calculations.

The increase in UI tax rates for 2010 has been sudden and dramatic.  According to a survey by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, the median projected increase in UI tax revenue for 2010 is 27.5%.  Ominously, several of the states with the largest trust fund loans have yet to increase rates significantly, increasing the likelihood of rate increases for 2011.  These states include California, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, and New York.  We expect UI tax rates to remain elevated for three or more years.

As a result of disregarding the Average High Cost Multiple, there has been a lack of counter-cyclical financing and employers are now feeling the effects of this policy.  If the state trust funds had average high cost multiples of 1.00 going into this recession, there would now be eight states with federal loans totaling about $3 billion.  As it stands, there are now thirty-two states and the Virgin Islands with outstanding federal loans of $37 billion.  One could argue that employers have had the use of their money longer, having contributed less to the trust funds until this year, and that counter-cyclical financing is not necessarily desirable.  However, in the midst of a recession, some employers have now gone out of business, so the higher taxes are collected only from the survivors.

Another contributing factor to the decline in trust fund solvency has been the gradual decline in the proportion of wages that are taxed.  Chart 2 illustrates that the ratio of taxable wages to total wages has dropped continuously over the years, despite the fact that some state taxable wage limits increase each year.  By contrast, benefit payouts are holding relatively constant as a percent of wages (see Chart 3).  We expect that the taxable wage limits will receive increased attention now, and that significantly higher SUI taxable wage limits are on the horizon.

Going forward, more UI benefits will be payable because of the expansion of eligibility, and these benefits will be funded by future UI taxes.  Provisions in the Recovery Act encouraged states to enlarge the pool of workers who are eligible for UI benefits, and many state UI laws have been amended.  Many states now approve UI claims for individuals who limit their availability to part-time work only.  Many disqualifications have been removed from state UI laws, relating to individuals who quit for certain non-work related reasons.  For these reasons, we doubt that the ratio of UI taxes to total wages will ever return to the 2009 level.

It has now become more important than ever to control this cost.  We can and will collectively ensure that your tax accounts are not charged for unwarranted or improper claims.  We will also continue to monitor your tax rates to ensure that they are correct and as low as possible, given your experience.  Finally, it continues to be important to educate front-line managers as to their roll in controlling this cost, and we are glad to assist with this as well.

As always, if there are any questions please contact us.

Click here for a printable version.

The Vermont Department of Labor has announced several reporting changes effective January 1, 2010.  First, the UI taxable wage base has been increased from $8,000 to $10,000.  This change will need to be taken into consideration when filing your first quarter of 2010 tax return.  If you file online, the taxable wages for each employee will be automatically calculated based on the new wage base.  Further, employers with twenty-five or more workers are required to file their quarterly reports electronically.

Additionally, the legislation has increased the Health Care Contribution rate to $101.74 for each “uncovered” Full Time Equivalent (FTE).  This change is also retroactive to January 1, 2010.

Following is a news release from the Vermont Department of Labor addressing these changes.  As always, please contact us if there are any questions.

Click here for a printable version.