Fitzgerald v. United States

407 F. Supp. 1132, 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 616, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17228
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky
DecidedJanuary 12, 1976
DocketCivil Action 74-90
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 407 F. Supp. 1132 (Fitzgerald v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fitzgerald v. United States, 407 F. Supp. 1132, 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 616, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17228 (E.D. Ky. 1976).

Opinion

WELLFORD, District Judge, sitting by designation:

Order

This cause was heard by agreement of the parties by the Court without a Jury. This controversy involved the asserted individual liability of Frederick O. FitzGerald, Jr., as a responsible officer to pay unpaid withholding and F.I.C.A. taxes of the following corporations, for the following periods and in the following amounts:

Corporation: Calendar Periods Involved: Amount of Assessment:

International Business Associates, Inc. 4th Quarter — 1970 $ 5,946.11

Wimpy International, Inc. 3rd & 4th Quarters — 1970 1,697.12

Wimpy of Syossett, Inc. 3rd & 4th Quarters — 1970 1,594.80

Wimpy of Huntington, Inc. 3rd & 4th Quarters — 1970 2.583.82

Assessments under Section 6672 $11,821.25

Assessment of Lien Fee on October 23,1973 _1.00

Total Assessments $11,822.25

Partial payments have been made by Frederick O. FitzGerald, Jr. on the assessments made against him under Section 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 1 For purposes of trial, those partial payments approximated $1,890.00. Defendant has counterclaimed for the outstanding unpaid balance of the assessments.

FitzGerald admits that as President of the various corporations, he was a responsible person within the meaning of the law for said corporations during the above-mentioned periods, but he contends that he did not willfully fail to collect or truthfully account for and pay over said taxes. FitzGerald first became associated with said corporations in the late spring or early summer of 1969 when he was elected President and a Director of Wimpy International, Inc., (“Wimpy International”), Wimpy of Syosset, Inc. (“Syosset”), and Wimpy of Huntington, Inc. (“Huntington”). At that time, Syosset operated a fast food restaurant in Syosset, New York; Huntington operated a fast food restaurant in Huntington, New York; and Wimpy International was a holding company that owned all the issued and out *1134 standing stock of both Syossett and Huntington.

Wimpy is the trade name of a hamburger chain in Europe, and Wimpy International had purchased the right to use and promote the Wimpy name in the United States, exclusive of the Chicago, Illinois, area. It was the business purpose and goal of Wimpy International to develop a nationwide franchising business built around the Wimpy name.

The Board of Directors of Wimpy International included Edward Gold, who was interested in developing a chain of Wimpy Restaurants in the Chicago area; Eli Jacobs, a principal in the firm of White, Weld & Company of New York, a substantial stockholder in Wimpy International; and FitzGerald, who had a background in the fast foods business. At the time FitzGerald became President and a Director of Wimpy International, Syosset, and Huntington, the Board of Directors were negotiating with White, Weld & Company for a substantial private placement of stock of Wimpy International to be issued for necessary capital.

In June of 1970, Wimpy International and Johnnies American Inns (hereinafter “JAI”) in Omaha, Nebraska, combined their operations and created a third corporation, International Business Associates, Inc. (hereinafter “IBA”) to serve as a holding company. The shareholders of Wimpy International and JAI exchanged their respective shareholdings in return for proportionate stock interests in IBA. It was hoped that this merger, engineered in part by FitzGerald, would assist Wimpy International in its financial problems, since no capital had been generated through other directors’ activities, including the White, Weld & Co. negotiations.

FitzGerald was employed to reorganize the staff of Wimpy International into an operating company capable of handling the proposed franchise business, and as part of the reorganization, he was instructed to and did cause the principal office of Wimpy International to be moved from New York to California. Shortly before moving, he employed Robert F. Parsley (“Parsley”) as comptroller of each of the corporations. Parsley later became Financial Vice President of the corporations, as well as comptroller. He had general responsibility for the financial affairs of the corporations, along with the responsibility of planning and establishing the financial and accounting system to be used in the franchise operations. Within the corporate structure, Parsley and his assistant had the primary responsibility for the preparation of tax returns and the payment of taxes (including withholding and F.I.C.A.) and other expenses due by each of the corporations. Carl Kantor was Secretary of each of the corporations here involved and Gerald Sawall was Treasurer of both IBA and JAI. Kantor and Sawall, among others, were also directors of IBA and Wimpy International.

In January, 1970, Parsley employed Mrs. Brigitte Burger (“Burger”) as a bookkeeper for each of the corporations. Burger worked directly under Parsley and apparently prepared most of the corporate tax returns and prepared most of the corporate checks, including payroll checks, under Parsley’s supervision.

Plaintiff, FitzGerald, as chief executive officer, was employed at an initial salary of $40,000 per year, but that salary was later increased to $60,000 per annum when IBA was formed. He and Parsley were principal signatories on each of the corporate bank accounts involved in this case (except JAI). All checks drawn on the corporate general accounts of Wimpy International, Syosset, Huntington and IBA required the signature of any two of the officers FitzGerald, Parsley and Sawall, but only one of them was required on payroll accounts.

When the date arrived for the Forms 941 for IBA, Syosset, Wimpy International and Huntington to be filed for the third quarter of 1970, and to pay over the withheld income and F.I.C.A. taxes due for that period, the corporations were in substantial need of additional *1135 funds if they were to continue in business. On October 14, 1970, FitzGerald had reported at a meeting of the Board of Directors of IBA and its subsidiaries (Wimpy International and JAI) that the funds of IBA were “negligible,” and that in order to continue, IBA would have to draw on monies received by JAI from operations. At the October 14, 1970, board meeting, however, FitzGerald also had expectations that additional units could be opened during the next 90 to 120 days, depending upon favorable outside financing. 2

Funds in the various bank accounts of the corporations were frequently transferred to other corporate bank accounts. The corporations were, more or less, treated as a single entity with respect to obtaining and using funds where most needed.

When the Forms 941, “Employer’s Quarterly Tax Returns”, were due to be filed for the third quarter of 1970, together with the payment to the Government for the withholding taxes attributable to the last month of the third quarter of 1970, according to Parsley’s testimony, FitzGerald told him not to pay over the taxes as the corporations needed the monies to continue the payments of the wages of the employees. This was corroborated by Burger, but flatly denied by FitzGerald.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Cope
680 F. Supp. 912 (W.D. Kentucky, 1987)
Ruth v. United States
661 F. Supp. 652 (N.D. Illinois, 1986)
Sherman v. United States
490 F. Supp. 747 (E.D. Michigan, 1980)
Taubman v. United States
499 F. Supp. 1133 (E.D. Michigan, 1978)
Bolding v. United States
565 F.2d 663 (Court of Claims, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 F. Supp. 1132, 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 616, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-united-states-kyed-1976.