Cushman v. Wood, Civ. A. No. 2276.

Decision Date08 May 1956
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 2276.
Citation149 F. Supp. 644
PartiesAllerton CUSHMAN and Renee S. Cushman, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. Wilson WOOD, District Director of Internal Revenue, Phoenix, Arizona, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Arizona

McLane & McLane, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff.

Jack D. H. Hays, U. S. Atty., Robert S. Murless, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant.

McCOLLOCH, District Judge.

This cause having been heard on the plaintiffs' complaint, the defendant's answer, oral testimony and exhibits offered at trial, oral argument, and memoranda submitted by both parties, this Court makes the following findings of fact and reaches the following conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact.

1. Plaintiffs are residents of Phoenix, Arizona. During 1952 they occupied two of the elected offices of the Phoenix Senators Baseball Club, a corporation. Allerton Cushman was the President while Renee S. Cushman was the Vice-President. The remaining two offices were held by a Phoenix attorney, Riney Salmon, who was the Secretary, and Henry Goodman who was the Treasurer. In addition to the above officers, the corporation employed a General Manager named Chet Murphy, and an accountant, Frank E. Parsons.

2. Each of the above officers was a shareholder in the corporation. The stock owned by plaintiffs was first acquired in May of 1951.

3. The corporation, whose business was the operation of minor league baseball in Phoenix, lost large sums of money each year during which plaintiffs were shareholders and officers. It paid them no dividends or salaries. Instead the plaintiffs loaned $17,492.33 to the corporation during 1951 and 1952. The said loans were never repaid. Neither of the other two shareholders or officers loaned money to the corporation.

4. During 1952, the corporation's FICA (Social Security) and Withholding returns were prepared and filed by Mr. Frank E. Parsons who presented the returns and a check to Mr. Chet Murphy for signature. It was the duty and responsibility of Mr. Parsons, as the corporation's accountant, and Mr. Murphy, as its General Manager, to withhold and pay over FICA and Withholding taxes. The plaintiffs herein were not the disbursing officers of the corporation, and did not perform the function of preparing FICA and Withholding returns, collecting the taxes or paying them over.

5. In 1952, from January 1st through June 31st, the corporation duly paid the FICA and Withholding taxes to defendant. The sums due for each month were paid on or before the last day of the following month. Thus, on June 30, 1952, the FICA and Withholding taxes for the preceding month of May were paid over to the defendant. However, the payment of July 31, 1952 for the month of June was not made to defendant because the corporation went out of business on July 29, 1952, due to lack of funds. Likewise, when the payment of August 31, 1952, for the month of July was due, the same situation existed. In other words, the corporation could not pay the FICA and Withholding taxes for June and July of 1952 when they were due because there were no funds available to make such payments.

6. Subsequent to July 29, 1952, plaintiff Allerton Cushman, succeeded in selling the corporation's only remaining asset, a bus, for $1,500 which amount was paid over to defendant. After receipt of the said $1,500, the total amount of FICA and Withholding taxes remaining due to the defendant by the corporation was $2,020.22.

7. In September of 1954, defendant assessed the said amount of $2,020.22 against these plaintiffs under the purported authority of Section 2707(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S. C.A. § 2707(a). This sum of $2,020.22, plus interest of $123.93, was paid by plaintiffs as follows:

                On November 26, 1954         $2,114.15
                On December 16, 1954             30.00
                                             _________
                                Total        $2,144.15
                

8. Thereafter, on February 8, 1955, plaintiffs filed, on U. S. Treasury Form 843, a claim for refund of $2,144.15 plus interest as allowed by law. This suit was instituted by a filing of the complaint herein on August 11, 1955.

9. The plaintiffs were not the persons under a duty to perform the acts of paying, collecting, truthfully accounting for and paying over FICA and Withholding taxes to defendant.

10. Plaintiffs, even assuming they were under a duty to perform the acts set forth in paragraph 9 above, did not act or fail to act willfully insofar as those acts are concerned. Their failure to pay over FICA and Withholding taxes was due to reasonable cause, and lacked evil intent or bad motive.

Conclusions of Law.

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this cause.

2. Section 2707(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, under the alleged authority of which the assessment and collection herein was made, imposes a 100% penalty against "any person who willfully fails to pay * * * the tax" imposed by Section 2700. The said penalty applies to Social Security and Withholding taxes by virtue of Sections 1430 and 1627 respectively.

2. The word "person" appearing in Section 2707(a) is defined by Section 2707(d) as "an officer or employee of a corporation, * * * who as such officer, employee, * * * is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs."

3. The term "willfully" as used in Section 2707(a) means without reasonable cause. It is used to characterize...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • In re Premo
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 3 Luglio 1990
    ...delegator does not continue to make the ultimate decision regarding which debts are to be paid. Accord, Graham, supra; Cushman v. Wood, 149 F.Supp. 644 (D.Ariz.1956); Wiggins, supra. Indeed, to suggest otherwise would mean in effect that the Debtor, having concededly been a responsible pers......
  • Abramson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 2 Aprile 1985
    ...(p. 83,215), aff'd 507 F.2d 682 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2656, 45 L.Ed.2d 693 (1975); Cushman v. Wood, 149 F.Supp. 644, 645 (D.Ariz.1956); see Barrett v. United States, 580 F.2d 449, 452, 217 Ct.Cl. 617 "Absent here is any evidence that Abramson had or exercised......
  • Gray v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 22 Marzo 1984
    ...term "willfully" means without reasonable cause, citing Feist v. United States, 607 F.2d 954, 221 Ct.Cl. 531 (1979) and Cushman v. Wood, 149 F.Supp. 644 (D.Ariz.1956). Gray claims that during the last week of October of 1979, he had talked with the company accountant in regard to paying the......
  • Wilson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 27 Febbraio 1958
    ...54-158, 1951-1 Cum.Bull. 247. Compare Kellems v. United States, D.C., 97 F. Supp. 681, and 50-2 USTC at 9489 (1950), and Cushman v. Wood, D.C., 149 F.Supp. 644, holding that mere intentional failure to pay is not even sufficient for civil The oft-cited opinion in Paddock v. Siemoneit, supra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT