Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01126/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

" 

FI LED 

U~ired States Court of Appeals .. ,..,..,~ .. J--. r·:_ ...... : .. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LEONG. BELOTE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v . ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, } 

) 

Defendant-Appellee, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

MANFORD B. CRAWLEY; FREDDIE G. GRIGGS, } 

) 

Defendants on Counterclaim. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1126 

(D.C. No. 86-640-C) 

(E.D. Okla.} 

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation . 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1126 Document: 01019967115 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 1 
• 

Plaintiff appeals from a district court judgment entered in 

favor of defendant United States of America on both plaintiff's 

complaint and defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff brought this 

action to recover tax penalties assessed against him pursuant to 

26 U.S.C. § 6672(b), and defendant counterclaimed for certain 

interest and statutory additions. 

We review the evidence bearing upon plaintiff's liability 

under § 6672 in the light most favorable to the government and 

will not disturb the factual findings of the district court unless 

they are clearly erroneous. Burden v. United States, 486 F.2d 

302, 304 (10th Cir. 1973). Issues of law, of course, we review de 

novo. See Bill's Coal Co. v. Board of Pub. Utils., 887 F.2d 242, 

244 (l0th _Cir. 1989). Upon consideration of the arguments raised 

herein, we agree with the district court's determination that 

plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing either that he 

was not a responsible person for purposes of S 6672 or that he did 

not willfully fail to pay over the·withholding taxes in question. 

See generally Collins v. United States, 848 F.2d 740, 742 (6th 

Cir. 1988)(burden on party challenging assessment of § 6672 

penalty); Sawyer v. United States, 831 F.2d 755, 758 (7th Cir. 

1987)(same). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1126 Document: 01019967115 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 2