Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Muck v. United States

791 F. Supp. 817 (D. Colo. 1992)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Muck v. United States

3 Citing cases

  1. Muck v. United States

    3 F.3d 1378 (10th Cir. 1993)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that "a corporate officer or employee is responsible if he or she has significant, though not necessarily exclusive, authority in the general management and fiscal decisionmaking of the corporation; [t]he existence of such authority, irrespective of whether that authority is actually exercised, is determinative; [l]iability is not confined to the person with the greatest control; [t]hus, even if a business manager has more day-to-day control, such fact will not insulate an otherwise responsible person from liability"

    The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Ronald P. Muck appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States regarding his tax liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, 791 F. Supp. 817. Because we agree with the district court that plaintiff was at all relevant times a "responsible person" under the statute, and that he willfully failed to pay over employee withholding taxes, we affirm.

  2. Fowler v. U.S., Through I.R.S.

    820 F. Supp. 1390 (D. Wyo. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    31. In Muck v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 817, 819-820 (D.Colo. 1992), the court concisely summarized the law regarding 26 U.S.C. § 6672: Every employer who pays wages must deduct and withhold federal taxes and deposit those funds into a trust account for the benefit of the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 3402.

  3. In re Rothman

    206 B.R. 99 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that counsel's efforts in "pursuit of its own fee application are of no benefit to either the estate or the Debtor individually" and therefore "is generally not compensable from the debtor's estate"

    The Debtor is correct in stating that, if Wayne does not pay the payroll taxes due on his wages, he, as sole shareholder of the corporation, will most likely be held ultimately liable for any payroll taxes not paid by Wayne Chiropractic pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672(a). See, e.g., Muck v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 817 (D.Colo. 1992), aff'd, 3 F.3d 1378 (10th Cir. 1993) (president and sole shareholder of corporation had sufficient control over the financial affairs of the corporation to render him personally responsible to collect and pay the corporation's wage withholding taxes); In re Thomas, 187 B.R. 471, 475-76 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1995) (accountant of corporate business held personally liable for unpaid withholding taxes of business); In re Abel, 162 B.R. 993 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 200 B.R. 816 (E.D.Pa. 1996) (secretary who was also 50% shareholder in corporation qualified as "responsible person" who may be responsible to pay corporation's portion of employee withholding taxes); In re Green, 89 B.R. 466, 472-78 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1988) (corporate president held liable for withholding taxes due from his business); and In re Myers, 36 B.R. 56 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1984) (since the debtor and his wife who were sole stockholders of corporation, the debtor was personally liable for paying trust fund taxes of