Verret v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Verret v. United States

312 F. App'x 615

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2009

Docket08-40448

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 312 F. App'x 615 (Verret v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Verret v. United States, 312 F. App'x 615 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant in his appeal has demonstrated no reversible error in the district court’s thorough and well considered February 14, 2008 memorandum opinion.

Appellant does not challenge on this appeal the district court’s determination that he was a “responsible person” under section 6672. Admittedly, he became aware in November 2001 that the Hospital’s payroll withholding taxes for the third and fourth quarters of 2001 were outstanding and unpaid. He was not only Chairman of the Hospital’s Board of Directors but was also an essentially salaried and active paid consultant of the Hospital — at a rate of some $70 to $80,000 a year — and continued to receive this compensation from the Hospital and to be aware that the Hospital’s third and fourth quarter withholding taxes were still outstanding while he was receiving such payments and diverse other Hospital employees and/or other creditors were being paid. 1 Nor does appellant argue on this appeal that he is exempted from liability under section 6672(e).

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5tii Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

1

. See Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 180 (5th Cir.1991):

“Foster was a responsible person for all four quarters of 1981. Therefore, the government did not have to prove that he knew about the unpaid taxes before October 1981 in order to hold Foster liable for willfully failing to pay the taxes for all four quarters of 1981. Even if the trust funds for the other quarters had already been dissipated by the time Foster learned that DJT had not paid the payroll taxes for the previous quarters, Foster nevertheless had a duty to apply any available unencumbered funds to reduce the payroll tax liability.”

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

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant in his appeal has demonstrated no reversible error in the district court’s thorough and well considered February 14, 2008 memorandum opinion.

Appellant does not challenge on this appeal the district court’s determination that he was a “responsible person” under section 6672. Admittedly, he became aware in November 2001 that the Hospital’s payroll withholding taxes for the third and fourth quarters of 2001 were outstanding and unpaid. He was not only Chairman of the Hospital’s Board of Directors but was also an essentially salaried and active paid consultant of the Hospital — at a rate of some $70 to $80,000 a year — and continued to receive this compensation from the Hospital and to be aware that the Hospital’s third and fourth quarter withholding taxes were still outstanding while he was receiving such payments and diverse other Hospital employees and/or other creditors were being paid. 1 Nor does appellant argue on this appeal that he is exempted from liability under section 6672(e).

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5tii Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

1

. See Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 180 (5th Cir.1991):

“Foster was a responsible person for all four quarters of 1981. Therefore, the government did not have to prove that he knew about the unpaid taxes before October 1981 in order to hold Foster liable for willfully failing to pay the taxes for all four quarters of 1981. Even if the trust funds for the other quarters had already been dissipated by the time Foster learned that DJT had not paid the payroll taxes for the previous quarters, Foster nevertheless had a duty to apply any available unencumbered funds to reduce the payroll tax liability.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F. App'x 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verret-v-united-states-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack