2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-16-2007 

# P edi atr ic Affi li at es v

. U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1979

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P e d i atr ic Affi l i at e s v

. U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1293. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1293

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 06-1979 PEDIATRIC AFFILIATES, Appellant

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (05-cv-03108) District Court Judge: Hon. Mary Little Cooper Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 8, 2007 Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and FISHER Circuit Judges

. (Opinion filed April 16, 2007)

OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge

. Pediatric Affiliates appeals the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint Pediatric Affiliates filed seeking a redetermination of its tax liability. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.2 

### I. Because we write primarily for the parties, we need not recite the factual or procedural background in detail. 

### Rather, we will only briefly summarize the relevant facts that are helpful to our discussion. In 2002, the Internal Revenue Service (“IR S”) first notified appellant that it had underpaid its payroll taxes for 1999 and part of 2000. After some investigation, appellant discovered that PAL Data Processing, Inc. ; and PAL’s founder, Menachem Hirsch, had misappropriated tax funds collected from appellant. Appellant had hired Hirsch and his company to service its payroll accounting. However, Hirsch instituted a scheme in which he underpaid the payroll taxes he forwarded to the IRS on behalf of appellant, and then pocketed the remaining funds. Hirsch was even tually prosecuted for this illegal scheme. He pled guilty to criminal fraud and tax evasion and was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment and ordere d to pay $841,959 in restitution to appellant. When the IRS informed appellant that it intended to proceed against it for the payroll taxes that remained outstanding b ecause of Hirsch’s embezzlement, appellant sought administrative review. The IRS Office of Appeals issued a Notice of Determination that upheld the liability and appe llant then filed this suit seeking review of the IRS Determination. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and this appeal followed. II.3 

### Appellant argues that it should not be he ld liable for unpaid employment taxes and interest because: (1) it was not responsible for PAL’s theft, and (2) if Hirsch was charged with a crime involving a tax loss, Pediatric should be credited with the amount of that loss attributable to the crime committed against it. Appellant’s arguments require little discu ssion given the well-established principle that a taxpayer’s reliance on a third party to fulfill its tax obligations does not relieve the taxpayer of responsibility for those obligations. See United States v. Boyle , 469 U.S. 241, 252 (1985) (the timely filing of returns and th e payment of taxes are solely the duties of the taxpayer and are not delegable). Appellant concedes that it was required to collect and pay over employment taxes to the governme nt under the Internal Revenue Code. An employer is liable for payment of taxes th at must be deducted and withheld from its employees’ income. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3403. Misappropriation of f unds by a third party does not relieve an employer of that obligation. See Morin v. Frontier Business Technologies, Inc. , 288 B.R. 663, 674 (noting that, wh en payroll services provider misappropriated funds it had received from its c lients for payment of their payroll taxes, the clients owed the unpaid taxes to the IRS); see also United States v. Galletti , 541 U.S. 114, 121 (2004) (“[W]hen an employer fails to withhold and submit the requisite amount of employment taxes, § 3403 makes clear th at the liable taxpayer is the employer.”). Although the IRS may, in certain circumstan ces, abate a penalty for failure to make timely payment, the abatement does not extend to the unpaid tax principal. See I.R.C. §4 

### 6404(e)(1) (codified at 26 U.S.C.A. § 6404). Pediatric argues that it should not be liable for interest on the unpaid tax liability because the IRS held the case in abeyance pending the resolution of the criminal prosecution. The IRS may abate interest on a tax deficiency if the interest is attributable to unreasonable error or delay by an officer or employee of the Service in performing a ministerial or managerial act. I.R.C. § 6404(e)(1). However, delay or error is not a ground for abatement if it is attributable to the taxpayer. Id. We can not say that it was unreasonable for the IRS to refrain from collecting appellant’s outstanding tax delinquency until the prosecution of PAL and Hirsch was resolved. Moreover, nothing prevented appellant from paying the delinquenc y in the interim, and thereby mitigating the penalties that continued to accrue. Appellant also relies on principles of judi cial estoppel. That is an equitable principle intended to prevent one party fro m asserting an “inconsistent or mutually contradictory position with respect to the samematter in the same or a successive series of suits.” Scarano v. Central R.R. , 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir. 1953). “It is not intended to eliminate all inconsistencies, however s light or inadvertent; rather, it is designed to prevent litigants from ‘playing fast and loose with the courts.’” Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co. , 81 F.3d 355, 358 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Scarano , 203 F.2d at 513). The doctrine is not implicated here. The government’s position in the criminalprosecution was not irreconcilably5 

### inconsistent with the position it took during proceedings related to appellant’s tax delinquency. As noted above, appellant is liable for employment taxes regardless of whether an intermediary misappropriated f unds collected to pay that obligation. Moreover, the government is entitled both to criminally prosecute Hirsch for attempting to defeat a tax obligation—his own or some one else’s – and also collect the delinquent taxes that appellant owed because of Hirsch’s embezzlement. See I.R.C. § 7201. Similarly, no estoppel arises from oral statements the Appeals Officer made during the administrative hearing. To prevail on a traditional estoppel defense, the record must establish reasonable reliance on a misrepre sentation to a party’s detriment. See Heckler v. Community Health Servi ces of Crawford County Inc. , 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1984). However, more is required to find an es toppel against the government. When the government is involved, the party claimi ng estoppel must establish “affirmative misconduct or rare or extreme circumstances.” See United States v. Pepperman , 976 F.2d 123, 131 (3d Cir. 1992). Here, appellant rests its estoppel claim on the Appeals Officer’s oral statement that appellant should not be held responsible for money, interest or penalties that were stolen by Hirsch. That oral expression of opinion simply does not rise to the level of an estoppel. See Heckler , 467 U.S. at 65 (1984) (estoppel cannot be erected on the basis of oral advice); United States v. St. John’s Gen. Hosp. , 875 F.2d 1064, 1070 (3d Cir. 1989) (no estoppel where a lleged misrepresentation was based on inadmissible hearsay, not written corresponden ce). Moreover, appellant was represented6 

### by counsel and therefore, its “failure to decipher the Tax Code cannot be excused by its reliance on a government employee’s error.” Estate of Kunze v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 233 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000). III. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the district court’s order dismissing appellant’s complaint.