noting that holding corporate office does not per se impose a duty, but that an officer may have such a duty even if he is not the disbursing officer so long as he otherwise has sufficient power within the corporate structure
Summary of this case from Thomas v. U.S.No. 222.
October 12, 1970.
C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 420 F. 2d 1191.
noting that holding corporate office does not per se impose a duty, but that an officer may have such a duty even if he is not the disbursing officer so long as he otherwise has sufficient power within the corporate structure
Summary of this case from Thomas v. U.S.Full title:BAKER et al. v. F F INVESTMENT et al
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 12, 1970
Int.Rev. Code of 1954, § 6671(b). Int.Rev. Code of 1954, § 7501; Monday v. United States, 421 F.2d 1210 (7th…
McCarty v. United StatesHowever, in discussing willfulness at 372 F.2d 513, 178 Ct.Cl. pp. 778 et seq., White recognizes that…