Wiggins v. United States
Decision Date | 22 September 1960 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. 3367. |
Parties | W. B. WIGGINS v. UNITED STATES of America. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Miller, Martin, Hitching & Tipton, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.
John C. Crawford, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., Harvey G. Schneider, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
The defendant's brief, with slight deletions, fairly presents the cause of action and the applicable statutes:
In this action plaintiff seeks the recovery of $1608.12 plus interest, paid as the 100 percent penalty imposed by Section 2707(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 2707(a) for failure to pay over the withholding and F.I.C.A. taxes which were due from Appalachian Zinc Co., Inc., for the four quarters of 1949.
Section 1622 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1622 provides for the collection by employers of income taxes on employees' wages by means of withholding. Income taxes on wages are collected at the source through the employer. Section 1627, 26 U.S.C. § 1627 makes the penalty imposed by Section 2707 applicable to this tax. Similarly, Section 1401 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1401 requires employers to deduct the employee's share of F.I.C.A. taxes from the total amount of wages as and when paid. Section 1430, 26 U.S.C. § 1430 makes the penalty of Section 2707 applicable to this tax also.
Section 2707 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code provides as follows:
The questions presented are:
(1) Whether the plaintiff was a "person" under a duty to collect and pay the taxes within the purview of Section 2707 (d); and (2) Whether plaintiff willfully failed to collect and pay over to defendant withholding and F.I.C.A. taxes imposed against the Appalachian Zinc Co., Inc., on wages paid to employees within the meaning of Section 2707(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code.
The Appalachian Zinc Co. was set up as a Tennessee corporation in the early part of 1949 for the purpose of the mining of zinc ore. Mr. Wiggins was the active person in setting up Appalachian, together with New Jersey Zinc Exploration Co. The purpose of organizing the corporation seems to be that the New Jersey Company sought to have exploratory mining in Tennessee with a view of buying or leasing without assuming any obligations and Mr. Wiggins felt that he could make money out of the venture. Mr. Wiggins started with less than a shoestring as he borrowed from the New Jersey Company $1,000, which was the sole capital stock of the corporation. He endorsed his stock in blank and sent it to the New Jersey Company.
The New Jersey Company paid to Appalachian $10,000 per month for five months and after that a certain percent on production. As long as Appalachian received the $10,000 per month it flourished, but when the other arrangement went into operation Appalachian began to accumulate debts, went down hill and in slightly more than one year folded and quit.
Appalachian did not collect or pay withholding income taxes and F.I.C.A. taxes on the wages of Appalachian employees for the four quarters of 1949, which amounted to $1,608.12. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue concluded that Mr. Wiggins was the responsible person who willfully failed to pay the taxes and imposed upon Mr. Wiggins the penalty of $1,608.12 provided by Section 2707(a). Mr. Wiggins paid this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wetzel v. US
...not necessarily an individual "with power and responsibility within the corporate structure." See Id.; see also Wiggins v. United States, 188 F.Supp. 374, 376 (E.D.Tenn. 1960) ("The statute is directed at the person charged with the duty of collecting and paying the taxes and not simply one......
-
In re Premo
...the scope of §§ 6671 and 6672 in a manner which appears unwarranted by the language of these provisions. Cf. Wiggins v. United States, 188 F.Supp. 374, 376 (E.D.Tenn. 1960) ("The statute is directed at the person charged with the duty of collecting and paying the taxes and not simply one wh......
-
Dudley v. United States
...sent, that there would be insufficient funds in the account to cover the check." 275 F.Supp. at 926. The court in Wiggins v. United States, 188 F.Supp. 374 (E.D.Tenn.1960), "The mere fact that the corporation may have had money to pay the taxes but used it to pay other bills, with the knowl......
-
McCarty v. United States
...v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 834 (W.D.La.1956), Belcher v. United States, 6 A.F.T.R.2d 5495 (W.D.Va.1960), and Wiggins v. United States, 188 F.Supp. 374 (E.D. Tenn.1960)). However, the court in Monday v. United States, 421 F.2d 1210 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 821, 91 S.Ct. 38,......