翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Hudson
・ United States v. Imperial Petroleum, Inc.
・ United States v. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
・ United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.
・ United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission
・ United States v. Ivanov
・ United States v. Jackalow
・ United States v. Jackson
・ United States v. Janis
・ United States v. Jawad
・ United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation
・ United States v. John
・ United States v. John (1978)
・ United States v. John (2010)
・ United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup)
United States v Silk
・ United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency
・ United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness
・ United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film
・ United States v. 50 Acres of Land
・ United States v. Adams
・ United States v. Agrawal
・ United States v. Alcoa
・ United States v. Alvarez
・ United States v. Alvarez-Machain
・ United States v. American Library Ass'n
・ United States v. American Tobacco Co.
・ United States v. American Trucking Ass'ns
・ United States v. Ancheta
・ United States v. Andrus


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v Silk : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v Silk

''United States v Silk'', is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of protection for employees, under the Social Security Act 1935.
==Facts==
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue sued two businesses for employment taxes, one coal loading called Albert Silk Coal Co, run by Mr Silk in Topeka, Kansas, and one trucking, Greyvan Lines, Inc. The Commissioner said the taxes were due under the Social Security Act 1935, for employees of the business. In the ''Silk'' case, unloaders of coal provided their own tools, worked only when they wished, and were paid an agreed price for each ton of coal that they unloaded from railroad cars. In the ''Greyvan Lines'' case, truck drivers owned their own trucks, paid expenses for their operations, employed their own helpers and received payment on a piecework or percentage basis. The businesses argued that the coal loaders or the truck drivers providing work were independent contractors, and so not covered by social security taxes. In both cases, the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals had found that the coal loaders or truckers were independent contractors. The Commissioner had appealed.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v Silk」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.