Each time Michael M. Cooney’s unemployment compensation case has been appealed, the previous decision has been reversed.

Unfortunately for Cooney, 58, of 142 Harvard St., Grove City, the latest ruling — by Commonwealth Court — went against him.

A former Grove City councilman, Cooney said he was not surprised by the decision. Borough legal counsel David Ristvey seemed to select facts to support his conclusion at oral arguments before a three-judge panel, and the judges seemed confused, he said.

Cooney was Grove City’s elected tax collector — primarily for real estate tax — and appointed receiver of taxes for earned income tax from 2002 through 2005. He also collected taxes for Grove City School District and Mercer County.

There was no job description for receiver of taxes. The borough paid him a 5-percent commission, gave him some training, and paid for his office supplies, forms and postage, Commonwealth Court said.

Cooney did not participate in the borough’s health or pension plans and did not accrue leave time. He had his own office, rented from a private landlord, and paid his own rent and utilities.

When he was voted out of office in 2005, Cooney applied for unemployment benefits in connection with his former job as receiver of taxes. The application was granted, then reversed by a referee.

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reinstated the benefits, concluding that the borough failed to prove Cooney was self-employed. Borough officials also restricted Cooney’s outside work and controlled his handling of non-resident fees, UCBR said.

When an issue arose as to when unclaimed earned income tax money should be sent to home taxing authorities, borough officials ordered him to keep the money until it was requested, Cooney said.

A message left with borough council President George Pokrant was not returned.

Cooney also asked borough solicitor Timothy Bonner for permission to perform outside work, such as preparing income tax returns, but was denied. Cooney said he has a copy of a letter from Bonner saying he cannot prepare tax returns.

Bonner said he could not respond to the statement because of attorney-client privilege.

The borough appealed UCBR’s ruling to Commonwealth Court arguing that UCBR relied solely on inadmissible hearsay evidence in concluding the borough refused to allow Cooney to perform outside work.

The borough also claimed Cooney was free of the borough’s control, and that he was engaged in an independently established trade.

A three-judge panel of Commonwealth Court agreed with both borough officials.