Steele v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 16279.,16279. |
| Citation | 280 F.2d 89 |
| Parties | R. M. STEELE et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Bethell & Pearce, Fort Smith, Ark., represented appellants in this Court.
Charles W. Atkinson, U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, and Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., represented appellee.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
Penalties were assessed administratively against the president and the secretary of Davidson-Steele, Inc., in the amount of $5,186.47 as to each officer for willfully failing to pay over to the Internal Revenue Service the withholdings of income taxes and social security taxes made by the corporation from the wages of its employees.
Each officer made a payment of $50 to the Internal Revenue Service on the amount of the assessment against him, and they thereafter brought suit in the District Court for refund of these payments, on the ground that the penalties were erroneously and illegally assessed against them.
The Government moved to dismiss the action, contending that, under the holding in Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165, no right to sue for refund could exist, because the entire penalty had not been paid.
The District Court dismissed the action on this basis, 172 F.Supp. 793, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The Government now in effect concedes that it was in error in the position which it took in the District Court; that the withholdings involved constituted separate taxes as to the individual employees of the corporation; and that the penalties imposed similarly would be entitled to be regarded as divisible assessments made in relation to the individual withholdings.
A stipulation has been presented to us in which the parties agree that the situation is subject to the recognition made in footnotes 37 and 38 of the Flora opinion, 362 U.S. 145, at pages 171 and 175, 80 S.Ct. 630, at pages 644 and 646, 4 L.Ed.2d 623, that the full-payment rule is not applicable to an assessment of divisible taxes; and that on this basis the judgments herein should be reversed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the merits.
We are in accord with and accept the view and implication of the stipulation that the penalties imposed amounted legally, under §§ 6671 and 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. A., to divisible assessments or taxes against the officers, in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Joseph Francis Swain
...63, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958), aff'd on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960)); Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89, 91 (8th Cir.1960). She next must file an administrative refund claim with the IRS. Roberts, 242 F.3d at 1065 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a)). “......
-
Vir v. United States, 15-73T
...withholding before instituting a refund action." Boynton v. United States, 566 F.2d 50, 52 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89, 91 (8th Cir. 1960); Roseman v. United States, No. 09-539T, 2013 WL 151716, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 3, 2013).7 The rationale for this except......
-
In re Noffke, 14-106T
...withholding before instituting a refund action." Boynton v. United States, 566 F.2d 50, 52 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89, 91 (8th Cir. 1960).17 The rationale for this exception is that "section 6672 assessments represent a cumulation of separable assessments......
-
Church of Scientology of Colorado v. United States
...United States, 616 F.2d 1181, 1182 n.1 (10th Cir. 1980); Psaty v. United States, 442 F.2d 1154, 1159 (3d Cir. 1971); Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89, 90 (8th Cir. 1960). However, the exception applies in only two situations: (1) partial payment may suffice if the assessment is for unpa......
-
Choice Of Forum In Federal Excise Tax Refund Cases
...the court's jurisdiction if the taxpayer pays the tax for a single transaction during the applicable period. See Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1960);Spivak v. UnitedStates, 370 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1967). The district courts and the Court of Federal Claims recognize that full ......
-
The Civil Tax Case: Procedure and Strategy
...Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960); Tonasket v. United States, Ct.Cls. 78--2 U.S.T.C. Para. 9843. 20. Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1960). 21. Kell-Strom Tool Co., Inc. v. United States, 205 F.Supp. 190 (Dist. of Conn. 1962). 22. IRC § 7422(b). 23. IRC § 7422(a). 2......
-
Suing the Sovereign[1]
...v. United Stales, 357 U.S. 63, 75 (1958). The full payment rule does not apply to certain divisible taxes. E.g., Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1960). [31] 28 U.S.C. 52501 (1982). Accrual takes place when all the elements necessary to give rise to liability have occurred. Ja......
-
Most Recent Irs Due Diligence Regulations Under Irc § 6695(g) Continue to Pose Unique Challenges That Could Undermine Its Very Purpose
...Treas. Reg. § 1.6695-2(b)(3)(ii)(F).21. 28 U.S.C. § 1346; Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960).22. See e.g., Steele v. U.S., 280 F.2d 89, 90 (8th Cir. 1960); Korobkin v. United States, 988 F.2d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 1993) ("taxes or penalties that are seen as merely the sum of several i......
-
When the Irs Wants Your Client to Pay Trust Fund Taxes-part Ii
...a dischargeable debt, a bankruptcy action is of little value if this is the sole purpose of the petition. 31. See, e.g., Steele v. U.S., 280 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. As a shorthand approach to this, some practitioners merely say that the taxpayer should pay $100. Be sure to designate the payment a......