Don't HR Alone #17 - Minnesota Withholding, Walmart FMLA Case


Minnesota updates corporate officers withholding responsibilities — MINNESOTA — Withholding and Reporting

The Minnesota Department of Revenue has updated guidance regarding Minnesota personal income tax withholding responsibilities related to corporate officers in order to update the steps to register for withholding tax. Corporate officers who provide services for a corporation (whether an S corporation or C corporation) are considered employees of the corporation and should be paid a reasonable wage for services performed. Minnesota income tax must be withheld from any compensation given to officers, including cash, goods, or services, in exchange for working. However, Minnesota tax should not be withheld from nonresidents who will earn less in Minnesota wages than the minimum income required to file a Minnesota personal income tax return. The minimum filing requirement changes each year and is equal to one standard deduction for a single filer, regardless of the employee’s filing status, plus one personal exemption. For 2017, this amount is $10,400. Taxpayers are required to pay electronically if they have withheld more than $10,000 during the last 12-month period ending June 30, or paid any other Minnesota business tax electronically, or used a payroll service company. Taxpayers are also reminded that all withholding tax returns, including past-due and amended returns, must be filed electronically using the department’s filing and paying systems. (Withholding Tax Fact Sheet No. 6, Minnesota Department of Revenue, May 2017.)

Walmart employee did not timely submit medical certification, so FMLA claims fail — FEDERAL NEWS

A Walmart meat department employee who was injured in a fall and denied a transfer to lighter duty failed to submit a properly requested medical certification that would support her request for FMLA leave, so could not avail herself of FMLA protections, ruled a federal district court in Texas, granting summary judgment in part. The employee’s sex discrimination claim failed as well because the denial of a lateral transfer was not an adverse employment action. However, her termination, together with evidence that managers wanted to hire younger workers for her department sustained her age discrimination claim under the ADEA. The court declined to rule on the ADA claim, finding that further briefing was needed on whether lifting restriction constituted a disability.