have been liable to pay if the workman had been immediately employed by him. S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-400 (1985). Three tests are applied in determining whether the activity of an employee of a subcontractor is sufficient to make him a statutory employee within the meaning of § 42-1-400: (1) is the activity an important part of the owner’s business or trade; (2) is the activity a necessary, essential, and integral part of the owner’s trade, business, or occupation; or (3) has the identical activity previously been performed by the owner’s employees? Boone v. Huntington and Guerry Elec. Co., 311 S.C. 550, 430 S.E.2d 507 (1993); Riden v. Kemet Elec. Corp., 313 S.C. 261, 437 S.E.2d 156 (Ct.App.1993); see also Meyer v. Piggly Wiggly No. 24, Inc., 338 S.C. 471, 473, 527 S.E.2d 761, 763 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. T.H. Snipes and Sons, Inc., 306 S.C.
holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct holding there are three tests used to determine whether an employee was engaged in an activity that is part of the owners trade business or occupation holding interest derived from shortterm notes is an integral part of lone stars business since the surplus finds are produced by that business the investments are shortterm liquid made with the intent that both the principal and interest are to be used in the regular course of the taxpayers trade or business  holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business