Grover v. United States

691 F. Supp. 1572, 61 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1234, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15723, 1988 WL 90457
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedMay 5, 1988
DocketCiv. A. 83-2645-WD
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 691 F. Supp. 1572 (Grover v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grover v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 1572, 61 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1234, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15723, 1988 WL 90457 (D. Mass. 1988).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

WOODLOCK, District Judge.

This is a tax refund suit in which the parties seek to ascertain the respective liabilities of Alan J. Grover and Leonard Grover, formerly the principals of Doctors Grover, P.C. and Chelsea Dental Associates, for unpaid employment taxes from the fourth quarter of 1977 and the first and second quarters of 1978.

The action was brought by the plaintiff, Leonard Grover, who seeks a refund of $12,660.46 plus interest which the Internal Revenue Service offset against his 1979 personal tax refund. The refund was withheld due to an alleged willful failure to collect, pay over, and truthfully account for employment taxes due and owing from The Doctors Grover, P.C. and the Chelsea Dental Associates. The United States counterclaims, asserting that there remains due and owing to the United States a total of $381.48 with respect to the employment tax liability. In addition, the United States brings a third-party action against Alan J. Grover, seeking indemnification from the plaintiff’s suit as well as a 100% penalty by reason of Alan Grover’s failure to collect the employment taxes due and owing.

This matter was presented to me upon an agreed statement of facts, deposition testimony (as to which the parties agreed the court would be free to make credibility judgments), and several exhibits.

Upon the filings of the parties and the agreed record in this case, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Leonard Grover and his brother, Alan J. Grover, are dentists.

During the fourth quarter of 1977 and the first two quarters of 1978, they operated Doctors Grover, P.C. (the “professional corporation”) in the Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan areas of Boston. Leonard Grover was Treasurer and a 55% shareholder of the professional corporation; Alan Grover was President and a 45% shareholder. The brothers Grover were the only directors.

During 1977, the professional corporation purchased Chelsea Dental Associates, a group dental practice operating in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Alan Grover became President and Leonard Grover became the Treasurer of the subsidiary corporation. Both the professional corporation and the subsidiary used the same employer identification number for tax purposes.

Following the purchase of Chelsea Dental Associates, Alan Grover worked primarily at the Chelsea office while Leonard Grover worked in their Mattapan and Roxbury offices. Alan Grover was primarily responsible for the Chelsea office while Leonard Grover oversaw the entire operation.

Leonard Grover, who spent approximately 50% of his time dealing with administrative matters, was more deeply involved in day-to-day management than Alan, who spent approximately 20% of his time on management activities.

Nevertheless, the brothers discussed problems and operations of the business fairly frequently and both met with their *1574 corporations’ clerk and attorney, Stanley Charmoy. Although their respective responsibilities and their time devoted to management activities differed, both brothers were involved in formulating corporate decisions, including decisions about hiring and firing of dentists and other employees, the salaries to be paid to employees, and the fee schedules to be used for non-Medicaid patients. In addition, both signed the original loan documents necessary to obtain financing for the acquisition of the Chelsea Dental Associates practice.

Both brothers periodically made cash advances from their own personal funds and agreed to forego their salaries in order to provide capital to their corporation when the corporation was low on funds. No loan documents were prepared with respect to these cash advances and the professional corporation never repaid them.

The brothers Grover had signature authority over the checking account of Chelsea Dental Associates at State Street Bank and Trust Company. Alan Grover had sole signature authority on the Chelsea Dental Associates’ lock box account at Town Bank and Trust Company and Alan Grover had joint authority on the Chelsea Associates’ petty cash account at Commonwealth Bank with the Chelsea Office Manager, Mary Robinson. Alan signed all checks written on this account.

In 1977 Doctors Grover, P.C. experienced severe cash problems resulting from slow reimbursements for the Medicaid services which formed a large portion of their practice. Contributing as well to their financial problems were the poor financial organizational and management skills of the doctors.

At approximately the time that the professional corporation purchased Chelsea Dental Associates, the brothers Grover also decided to hire Sanford Schupper and his corporation, Dentiserve, Inc., for the purpose of handling collections from patients, billings to Medicaid, preparation of payroll and others checks to creditors for signature by the Grovers, withholding taxes from wages of employees, and providing tax returns for the entire Doctors Grover, P.C. practice.

The decision of the brothers Grover to hire Schupper was made despite their having received a damning report by the only former client of Schupper’s whom they contacted as a reference. The brothers Grover variously recall that this client, Dr. Gary Sloan, told them that Schupper was “a thief and a robber” and that Sloan was suing Schupper “for mishandling his funds and mishandling his duties.” Sloan also reported that Schupper had threatened Sloan with a gun. Sloan recommended that the Grovers not do business with Schupper.

The Grovers were concerned about Schupper’s trustworthiness and reliability even before hiring him. Had their financial condition been better they might not have done so. Nevertheless, they made the choice to engage his services after Schupper represented to them that he could help them get loans for their dental practice. In hiring Schupper, they determined, as they put it, that their attorney Charmoy, would “watch him like a hawk.”

Almost immediately after Schupper was hired by the Grovers, financial matters turned steadily worse. The computer printouts of billing accounts and Medicaid accounts provided by Schupper did not provide an effective oversight for Sehupper’s activities because the information listed was frequently inaccurate and out of date. Schupper did not pay bills until the last possible moment and sometimes beyond. The Grovers received calls from utility companies threatening to shut off services. The Grovers were forced to direct Schupper to make the payments. They received calls from the mortgage holder in connection with Chelsea Associates when payments were not timely made. And again they had to direct Schupper to make these payments. In addition, laboratories called the Grovers complaining that payments which had previously been made on a timely basis before were now months late. The Grovers called Schupper to find out why laboratory payments had not been made as they had directed and in one case Schupper *1575 told the Grovers that the check was in the mail.

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

Related

Johnson v. United States
203 F. Supp. 2d 416 (D. Maryland, 2002)
Hammon v. United States
21 Cl. Ct. 14 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Dougherty v. United States
18 Cl. Ct. 335 (Court of Claims, 1989)
Edgar B. Thomsen, Jr. v. United States
887 F.2d 12 (First Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
691 F. Supp. 1572, 61 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1234, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15723, 1988 WL 90457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grover-v-united-states-mad-1988.