| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
BOR did not question the time spent by claimant in the operation of the business. They only took into account the fact that she owned 50% of the business and expected long-term profit from it. Umpire concluded that these factors alone did not support a finding that her involvement was not so minor in extent.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
continuity of the business |
|
Summary:
BOR did not question the time spent by claimant in the operation of the business. They only took into account the fact that she owned 50% of the business and expected long-term profit from it. Umpire concluded that these factors alone did not support a finding that her involvement in the business was not so minor in extent.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Summary:
BOR did not question the time spent by claimant in the operation of the business. They only took into account the fact that she owned 50% of the business and expected long-term profit from it. Umpire concluded that these factors alone did not support a finding that her involvement was not so minor in extent.
