Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00942/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00942-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Internal Revenue Service
Defendant
USA
Defendant
Roger Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

ROGER WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 4:22-cv-942-DPM 

USA and INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE 

ORDER 

DEFENDANTS 

1. The United States moves in limine on various issues. Here 

are the Court's rulings. 

• IRS Investigation and Assessment in General 

Granted as specified. As the government argues, this trial is not 

about the investigation mechanics or the details of the assessment. 

Williams, for example, has not made a sufficient showing about any 

errors in the amounts, which are presumed correct. Anuforo v. 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010). His 

position is that he's not responsible; and he faults the government for 

concluding otherwise. That issue will be resolved by the jury on the 

issues of responsibility, willfulness, and recklessness. But, and it's an 

important but, facts about the disputed issues revealed during the 

investigation are admissible. 

Case 4:22-cv-00942-DPM Document 39 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 4
• Assessments Against Others, Their Offers to Compromise, 

Their Negotiations, and Their Payments 

Granted. Facts about these issues are not relevant to Williams' s 

liability. Fed. R. Evid. 402. And to the extent there is some marginal 

relevance, these facts could confuse or unfairly prejudice the jury. 

Fed. R. Evid. 403 & 408. 

• Williams' s Negotiations and Offers to Compromise 

Granted, subject to the Rule's exceptions. Fed. R. Evid. 408. 

• Authority and Others' Responsibility 

Denied with caveats. The jury must decide whether Williams had 

the status, duty, and authority to avoid The Arc's nonremittal of the 

withholdings. E.g., Keller v. United States, 46 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Cir. 

1995). It is certainly correct that more than one person can be 

responsible for the employer's obligation. The Court will tell the jury 

this. In the faithless-underling cases, the Court of Appeals held that 

their responsibility was immaterial to the responsibility of owners and 

officers with wide-ranging authority. E.g., Colosimo v . United States, 

630 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2011); Oppliger v. United States, 637 F.3d 889, 

893 (8th Cir. 2011); Jenson v. United States, 23 F.3d 1393, 1395 (8th Cir. 

1994). Here, though, the deep and disputed question is the extent of 

Williams' s authority. He's entitled to offer evidence about the 

authority of the higher-ups at The Arc in his effort to prove the 

limitations of his powers and duties. If he had the power to remit the 

-2-

Case 4:22-cv-00942-DPM Document 39 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 4
taxes, a supervisor's direction not to do so will not absolve him of 

liability. Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1073 (8th Cir. 2007). 

What's at issue here is whether Williams had "the authority to pay the 

taxes in the first place." Ferguson, 484 F.3d at 1073 n.6. Others' 

authority /responsibility will help answer that question. 

• Assurances by Others and Williams' s Subjective Beliefs 

I 

Denied with caveats. These matters are not relevant to whether 

Williams was a responsible person. But, what Williams knew and 

when he knew it is relevant on willfulness. Colosimo, 630 F.3d at 753. 

That includes what he knew about these things: the unpaid tax liability; 

when The Arc planned to pay; whether the entity intended to pay; and 

whether other bills were being paid instead. Assurances from others 

with tax-related authority and responsibility go to Williams' s 

willfulness but not his responsibility. The Court will give a limiting 

instruction if the government requests one. 

2. Williams' s motion in limine is denied without prejudice. The 

Court will follow the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Witnesses and evidence must be identified pursuant to the 

Court's Final Scheduling Order, Doc. 9. To the extent that the 

government offers witnesses or documents that should have been 

disclosed in discovery but weren't, and Williams can show prejudice, 

the Court will almost certainly exclude them. 

-3-

Case 4:22-cv-00942-DPM Document 39 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 4
* 

Motion, Doc. 23, partly granted and partly denied, as specified. 

Motion, Doc. 25, denied without prejudice. 

So Ordered. 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

t 3 ~ vM-7 iJ..();).5° 

-4-

Case 4:22-cv-00942-DPM Document 39 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4