Kessler v. Charles

256 F. Supp. 21, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1065, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10540
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedMay 3, 1966
DocketCiv. A. No. 2993
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 256 F. Supp. 21 (Kessler v. Charles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kessler v. Charles, 256 F. Supp. 21, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1065, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10540 (S.D. Ohio 1966).

Opinion

[22]*22MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

WEINMAN, Chief Judge.

This case has been submitted to the Court for final determination. In this action, plaintiff seeks a refund of employment taxes, penalties and interest paid for the taxable periods January 1, 1957 to June 30,1960 in the total amount of $3,219.49. During the period in suit, the plaintiff did not file the required employers quarterly federal tax returns, nor did he withhold income taxes or federal insurance contribution taxes. Delinquent returns were returned by James E. Swanton, an internal revenue officer, who had determined the amount of the wages paid by examining the plaintiff’s income tax returns and cancelled checks. As a result of the audit, an assessment against the plaintiff was made in the following amounts:

Withholding tax $1,682.73

F.I.C.A. tax 451.90

Failure to file penalty 533.67

Interest 527.19

Advertising Expense 24.00

Total $3,219.49

On November 20, 1962, plaintiff paid the foregoing assessment. On December 19, 1962, he filed a claim for refund which was denied on June 24, 1963. Subsequently, on January 24, 1964, this action was filed.

There are two issues presented to the Court in this action: 1) Whether the workmen hired by the plaintiff were independent contractors rather than his employees within the meaning of the Federal Social Security Act and the Withholding Tax Statute and 2) Whether the plaintiff’s failure to file employment tax returns was due to reasonable cause and not to wilful neglect.

Plaintiff, Carl E. Kessler, dba Kessler Roofing and Remodeling Company was engaged in the home improvement business. His work consisted mainly of building garages, applying new roofing to homes, adding rooms and doing various types of cement work. Most of his work was secured through recommendations from people for whom he had worked in the past. The Court has heard the evidence regarding the manner in which plaintiff conducted his business and having carefully considered that evidence the Court finds that within the meaning of the Federal Social Security Act and the Withholding Tax Statute,

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 F. Supp. 21, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1065, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kessler-v-charles-ohsd-1966.