Latest news with #FederalUnemploymentTaxAct
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Can you get unemployment benefits if you're fired or quit your job?
(NewsNation) — When you're fired, you typically have the right to collect unemployment benefits. But what if you quit? According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, eligibility for unemployment benefits varies in both situations, since it's typically based on why an employee was fired. For example, if you were fired because of a violation of your company's policy, you may be ineligible to collect benefits. Who is Lucy Guo, youngest 'self-made' billionaire in new Forbes ranking? If you quit your job, you most likely won't be eligible for unemployment benefits. However, it's not always that simple. Unemployment benefits are run by the federal government and the state where you live and work. They are meant to offer short-term help for those unemployed and searching for a new role. The state decides how much you can receive, who can receive benefits and how long those benefits will last. In many states, eligible workers receive benefits for up to 26 weeks while looking for another job. However, nine states offer less than 26 weeks of benefits, and two states offer more than 26 weeks of benefits. Four states offer extended benefits programs. Americans haven't cooked this much at home since 2020: Campbell's CEO Unemployment programs are funded by businesses through the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and the State Unemployment Tax Act. Being unemployed doesn't mean you're eligible to receive benefits. Typically, the reason you were fired determines eligibility. If you were fired for reasons out of your control, you're likely eligible. These can include: Layoffs Downsizing No available work Furlough (like those due to the coronavirus pandemic) You must also meet work and wage requirements, as well as any additional requirements from your state. If you were fired for instances like theft or too many unexcused absences, you may not be eligible for benefits. Social Security: Study shows where seniors could face longest drive times to offices Other reasons for not being eligible could include: Failing a drug test Coming to work intoxicated Safety violations Sexual harassment Causing abuse or harm to fellow employees Intentionally violating a company's policy (in some states) If you quit your job, you likely will not receive unemployment benefits. However, if you can show that you had a good reason to quit, like harassment or an unsafe working environment, you could still be eligible. Most employment terms are 'at will,' meaning you can be fired at any time for any legal reason. However, you still have rights, including the right to receive unemployment benefits. You also have the right to receive your final payment and be paid severance if it is in your contract. Families earning under $200K can only afford to live comfortably in 7 states: Report If you're fired, you should also be offered continued health care coverage through COBRA. If your firing is part of a larger layoff or the closing of a business, then you also have the right to be given advanced notice. Growing number of Americans say tipping culture is 'out of control' If an employer thinks your unemployment benefits claim is invalid or misleading, they can contest it. When you make a claim with your state, your former employer will receive a notice either from the state itself or the federal agency. That claim will include details of your termination. An employer then decides whether to accept or contest the claim. If you believe your claim is wrongly contested, you can fight it. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court unanimously sides with Catholic charity group in tax exemption bid
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Catholic charity group is entitled to tax relief it was denied on the basis that its operations were not primarily religious, a decision that could expand eligibility for religious tax exemptions. In a unanimous decision, the justices reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's determination that a chapter of Catholic Charities, a social services arm of Catholic diocese nationwide, does not qualify for a state unemployment tax because it doesn't sway those it serves to become Catholic. 'Much like a law exempting only those religious organizations that perform baptisms or worship on Sundays, an exemption that requires proselytization or exclusive service of co-religionists establishes a preference for certain religions based on the commands of their religious doctrine,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. Catholic Charities Bureau is controlled by the Diocese of Superior, and insists its services reflect 'gospel values and the moral teaching of the church.' However, it serves and employs non-Catholics, completes work that could be administered by nonreligious groups and doesn't attempt to proselytize. Wisconsin's top court denied its request for religious exemption from the state's unemployment tax system after determining its activities were 'primarily charitable and secular,' instead of religious. Sotomayor noted that it's 'fundamental' to the constitutional order that 'neutrality between religion and religion' is maintained by the government. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' she wrote. In a concurring opinion, Justices Clarence Thomas said he would have taken the court's ruling a step further to find that the lower court incorrectly deemed Catholic Charities as the primary 'organization' the group belongs to, as opposed to the broader Catholic Diocese of Superior. 'The First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference,' Thomas wrote. 'Religious institutions may create different corporate entities to help manage their temporal affairs, but those entities do not define the broader religious institution's internal structure. 'Here, although Catholic Charities and its subentities are separately incorporated from the Diocese of Superior, they are, as a matter of church law, simply an arm of the Diocese,' he continued. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion to further argue that the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)'s religious exemption does not differentiate between charities based on their religious motivations, whom they serve or how. 'Rather, both the text and legislative history of FUTA's religious-purposes exemption confirm that Congress used the phrase 'operated primarily for religious purposes' to refer to the organization's function, not its inspiration,' she wrote. 'Put differently, (the law) turns on what an entity does, not how or why it does it.' The decision marks another victory for religious plaintiffs in disputes with states, a trend in recent years at the Supreme Court. The tax exemption case is one of three religion cases the justices agreed to hear this term, in addition to weighing whether parents of children in public school can opt out of LGBTQ book instruction and whether an online Catholic school can become a charter school in a nationwide first. Updated 10:51 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Supreme Court Expands Tax Exemptions For Religious Charities
The Supreme Court expanded when religious organizations can qualify for tax exemptions as it ruled Thursday in favor of a charity in Wisconsin—potentially setting off a slew of organizations seeking new exemptions, which critics warn could harm federal and state tax revenues. Dan Bezley, 63, of Northville, MI, carries a cedar cross in front of the US Supreme Court in ... More Washington D.C. on Jan. Catholic Charities, a social charity that's part of Roman Catholic dioceses in Wisconsin, asked the state to be exempted from the its unemployment tax under the carveout for religious groups, but the state denied the request because the group's actual activities—providing services to people of all faiths who have disabilities—are not religious. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in the state's favor against the organization being granted the exemption, but Catholic Charities argued to the Supreme Court that being denied the exemption violated the First Amendment's prohibition on the government interfering with the free exercise of religion, claiming Wisconsin is trying to 'pick and choose among religious groups.' Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Catholic Charities, finding the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision violated the First Amendment. This story is breaking and will be updated. While it wasn't a party in the case, the Trump administration filed a brief urging the court to rule in favor of Catholic Charities being granted the tax exemption. The federal government claimed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling was based on a 'misunderstanding' of the law, and the exemption applies for any organization that conducts its activities 'primarily for sincere religious motivations,' even if the activities it conducts aren't directly religious acts like proselytizing. The Trump administration also suggested it has an interest in the case because any ruling could also affect federal rules on tax exemptions for religious groups, noting the language of Wisconsin's law 'mirrors' the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. The Supreme Court's ruling is the latest in a string of decisions the high court has made regarding religious liberty, which have typically come out in favor of broadening parties' religious rights. The 6-3 conservative court has ruled in recent terms to rule in favor of letting religious adoption agencies refuse to work with same-sex couples, a high school football coach who prayed on the field, a Christian group who wanted to fly a flag at Boston City Hall, a web designer who wanted to deny services to same-sex couples and that a state-funded school voucher program in Maine can be used to pay for religious school tuition, among other cases. Justices did issue a notable ruling in May against a proposed religious charter school in Oklahoma, splitting 4-4, which meant the lower court's ruling against the school will stay in place. The court could still take up other cases in the future on religious charter schools, however.
