Moats v. United States, 82-0455-CV-W-1.
Decision Date | 03 June 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-0455-CV-W-1.,82-0455-CV-W-1. |
Citation | 564 F. Supp. 1330 |
Parties | Robert L. MOATS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Sidney ESTRIDGE, James F. O'Crowley, Jr. and Herbert Maslin, Third-Party Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Stanley P. Weiner, Grier, Swartzman & Weiner, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Mark E. Nebergall, Trial Atty., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Robert G. Ulrich, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for defendant and third-party plaintiff.
David Rhodus, Morris, Larson, King, Stamper & Bold, Kansas City, Mo., for third-party defendant James F. O'Crowley, Jr.
John F. Michaels, Ryder, Rose & Frensley, Kansas City, Mo., Segal, Liling & Greenberg, New York City, for third-party defendant Herbert Maslin.
This Section 6672 26 U.S.C. § 6672 case involves the validity of a 100% penalty assessed against plaintiff Moats in the amount of $29,903.91 to cover withholding taxes of Arlen Trophy Company (Arlen), located in Middlesex, New Jersey, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gateway Sporting Goods Company (Gateway), located in Kansas City Missouri.
In accordance with established practice, see Kelly v. Lethert, 362 F.2d 629, 635 (8th Cir.1966), plaintiff paid a small portion of the § 6672 assessment, claimed a refund, and, after the refund claim was denied, brought an action in this Court. The government counterclaimed for the full amount of the penalty assessed under Section 6672.
The case pends on plaintiff Moats' April 15, 1983 motion for summary judgment, appropriately supported by affidavits and deposition testimony, and on the government's May 5, 1983 cross-motion for summary judgment. As will be noted, the pending motions and the suggestions in support and in opposition establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial within the meaning of Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's motion will be granted and the government's cross-motion will be denied for the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion.
The government's brief accurately states the questions presented and the statutes involved as follows:
STATUTES INVOLVED
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S. C.):
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is based upon factual data contained in the affidavits of plaintiff and of one Donald Farwell, a vice president of Gateway, the parent corporation of Arlen, the actual employer under duty to pay over the withheld taxes. Plaintiff also relies upon the deposition testimony of plaintiff and the deposition testimony of James F. O'Crowley, Jr., who was president of Gateway during the relevant periods of time. Both those depositions were noticed and taken by the government.
The government has not, by affidavit or otherwise, as authorized by Rule 56(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, attempted to set forth any specific facts which the government contends would show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Indeed, the government filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Its suggestions in opposition to plaintiff's motion and in support of its cross motion expressly state that "the government believes that the statement of facts contained in the plaintiff's brief is fairly accurate." The government's basic position is that it disagrees with plaintiff in regard to "the weight to be given much of the evidence submitted."
The government's quibbles concerning what it suggests might be hearsay contained in two paragraphs of plaintiff Moats' affidavit do not suggest that any material fact is in dispute within the meaning of Rule 56. We therefore find and conclude that the pending cross motions for summary judgment may properly be ruled on the undisputed factual data submitted in support of plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff's statement of fact, which the government concedes is "fairly accurate," states the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.
...See also, Local 314, Nat. P.O. Mail Handlers v. National P.O. Mail Handlers, 572 F.Supp. 133, 140 (E.D.Mo.1983); Moats v. United States, 564 F.Supp. 1330, 1343-4 (W.D.Mo.1983). I. UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF LIABILITY PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 106(a) AND 107(a) OF CERCL......
-
Lostocco v. D'ERAMO, A99A0253.
...United States, 41 AFTR2d 78-1230, 1978 WL 1206 (D.Md.1978); Hanhauser v. United States, 85 F.R.D. 89 (M.D.Pa.1979); Moats v. United States, 564 F.Supp. 1330 (W.D.Mo.1983); Rice v. Pearce, 574 F.Supp. 23 (S.D.Iowa 1983); Swift v. Levesque, 614 F.Supp. 172 (D.Conn.1985); Schoot v. United Stat......
-
Alexander v. NATIONAL FARMERS'ORGANIZATION
...in all cases which pend in this Court. Detailed directions of further proceedings, for example, were made in Moats v. United States, 564 F.Supp. 1330, 1346 (W.D.Mo. 1983), for counsel to comply with Hensley's admonition. The later report of that case, published in 576 F.Supp. 1537, 1542 (W.......
-
In re Tetracycline Cases, 83-0034-CV-W-O-A
...of material fact for resolution. See, Vette Co. v. Casualty & Surety Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir. 1980); Moats v. United States, 564 F.Supp. 1330, 1344 (W.D.Mo.1983). The party opposing the motion must receive the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts. Fitzge......