IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 26, 2009
No. 08-40448 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
STEPHEN K VERRET
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
from the Eastern District of Texas
Before GARWOOD, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant in his appeal has demonstrated no reversible error in the
district court’s thorough and well considered February 14, 2008 memorandum
opinion.
Appellant does not challenge on this appeal the district court’s
determination that he was a “responsible person” under section 6672.
Admittedly, he became aware in November 2001 that the Hospital’s payroll
withholding taxes for the third and fourth quarters of 2001 were outstanding
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-40448
and unpaid. He was not only Chairman of the Hospital’s Board of Directors but
was also an essentially salaried and active paid consultant of the Hospital – at
a rate of some $70 to $80,000 a year – and continued to receive this
compensation from the Hospital and to be aware that the Hospital’s third and
fourth quarter withholding taxes were still outstanding while he was receiving
such payments and diverse other Hospital employees and/or other creditors were
being paid.1 Nor does appellant argue on this appeal that he is exempted from
liability under section 6672(e).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1
See Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 1991):
“Foster was a responsible person for all four quarters of 1981. Therefore, the
government did not have to prove that he knew about the unpaid taxes before
October 1981 in order to hold Foster liable for willfully failing to pay the taxes
for all four quarters of 1981. Even if the trust funds for the other quarters had
already been dissipated by the time Foster learned that DJT had not paid the
payroll taxes for the previous quarters, Foster nevertheless had a duty to apply
any available unencumbered funds to reduce the payroll tax liability.”
2