Thus, involvement in either collecting, truthfully accounting for, or paying over taxes is sufficient; liability is not limited to those persons in a position to perform all three of the § 6672 enumerated duties. See Slodov, 98 S.Ct. at 1787 ; Verret v. United States, 542 F.Supp.2d 526, 533 (E.D.Tex.2008). The United States argues that Arriondo was a responsible person for the period in question, and Arriondo does not dispute that he was a responsible person in his response.

Section 6672 cases are routinely resolved by a motion for summary judgment. Conway v. United States , 647 F.3d 228 (5th Cir.2011) ; Morgan v. United States , 937 F.2d 281 (5th Cir.1991) ; Howard v. United States , 711 F.2d 729 (5th Cir.1983) ; Mazo v. United States , 591 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir.1979) ; Zarate v. United States , Civ. A. Nos. M–11–210, M–12–18, 2012 WL 4482048 (S.D.Tex. Sept. 26, 2012) ; United States v. Kennedy , No. SA–10–CV341–XR 2011 WL 2636096 (W.D.Tex. July 5, 2011) ; United States v. Rineer , 594 F.Supp.2d 732, 737 (N.D.Tex.2009) ; Verret v. United States , 542 F.Supp.2d 526 (E.D.Tex.2008), aff'd , 312 Fed.Appx. 615 (5th Cir.2009) ; Lencyk v. Internal Revenue Serv. , 384 F.Supp.2d 1028 (W.D.Tex.2005) ; and Frey v. United States , No. CIV. A. 399cv0831D, 2001 WL 493136 (N.D.Tex. May 4, 2001), aff'd , 34 Fed.Appx. 151 (5th Cir.2002). The Fifth Circuit held that “we cannot ignore the extensive case law that narrowly constrains a factfinder's province in § 6672 cases.”

The Government points out that motions for summary judgment are frequently granted in Section 6672 cases. Mazo v. United States, 591 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir. 1979) (duty to apply any available unencumbered funds to reduction of accrued withholding tax liability whether or not those funds are deemed to be trust funds); Rineer v. United States, 594 F. Supp.2d (N.D. Tex. 2009); Verret v. United States, 542 F. Supp.2d 526 (E.D. Tex. 2008); Sutton v. United States, 194 F. Supp.2d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2001). See also Frey v. United States, 2001 WL 493136 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Morgan v. United States, 937 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1991); Howard v. United States, 711 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1983); Lencyk v. Internal Revenue Service, 384 F. Supp.2d 1028 (W.D. Tex. 2005).

"An individual need not engage in all three of the activities listed in the statute in order to be held liable, involvement in any one of the three named activities is sufficient." Verret v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 2d 526, 533 (E.D. Tex. 2008), aff'd, 312 F. App'x. 615 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Slodov, 436 U.S. at 250). There are two elements to liability under § 6672.

"Such funds, which are remitted to the government on a quarterly basis, are for the exclusive use of the United States and are not available to cover operational or business expenses." Verret v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 2d 526, 533 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (citing 26 U.S.C. §§ 3102(b), 3403, 7501(a)). "[T]he funds accumulated during the quarter can be a tempting source of ready cash to a failing corporation beleaguered by creditors."

"Such funds, which are remitted to the government on a quarterly basis, are for the exclusive use of the United States and are not available to cover operational or business expenses." Verret v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 2d 526, 533 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (citing 26 U.S.C. §§ 3102(b), 3403, 7501(a)). "[T]he funds accumulated during the quarter can be a tempting source of ready cash to a failing corporation beleaguered by creditors."

Finally, Defendant McNeil contends that Happy is barred from seeking contribution from him because the Internal Revenue Service determined that he was liable only for the last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008. However, Defendant McNeil has not supported his argument with any documentation of his settlement with the Internal Revenue Service. Even if he were to do so, McNeil's settlement might not bar Happy's claim for contribution. SeeVerret v. United States, 542 F.Supp.2d 526, 540 (E.D. Tex. 2008). In summary, the Court holds that Defendant McNeil is a responsible person who willfully failed to pay over the withheld taxes, and that he is jointly and severally liable for the penalty imposed under § 6672(a).

A person is liable under the reckless disregard standard "if he (1) clearly ought to have known that (2) there was a grave risk that withholding taxes were not being paid and if (3) he was in a position to find out for certain very easily." United States v. Vacante, 717 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1017-1018 (E.D. Cal. 2010); see also Verret v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 2d 526 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) ("If a responsible officer has recently incurred a payroll tax delinquency and is aware of the deteriorating affairs of the corporation, he runs the risk of being held personally liable for the unpaid withheld payroll taxes if he fails to take steps to ascertain the state of the payroll tax liabilities or to institute effective financial controls to guard against nonpayment."), aff'd 312 F. App'x 615 (5th Cir. 2009). The evidence suggests that plaintiff knew of the delinquency in January 2001 and it is undisputed that he was aware of it in April 2001. The evidence also shows that around this time plaintiff submitted his own reimbursement requests, apparently did not insist that Ryness' $60,000 loan to ASFI be used for payroll taxes and did not direct that payments be withheld from vendors or other creditors.