Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that since he did not receive any remuneration from business which he treated as an investment, reg. 43(2) applies. I do not agree. Jurisprudence consistently holds that remuneration is only one factor in determining principal means of livelihood.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
business |
|
|
Summary:
Having made the legal and very technical determination that claimant was employed, the Board found statements made were false but failed to consider whether he knew. His evidence is he did not receive any remuneration from business regarded as investment. No attempt to conceal.