FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 16 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 7- cv -6 00 39 -MGC JOSEP H P. D’ ANGELO, in di vi du al ly, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , Day co n In ve st or s As so ci at es , Inc ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff , ve rs us USA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defend an t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 24 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andRESTANI, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM: Jo se ph P. D’ Ang el o app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Uni te d S ta te s o n D’Ang el o’s cl ai m th atth e g ov ern m en t wro ng fu ll y ass es se d ta xe s an d p en al ti es ag ai ns t h im un de r 26 U.S.C. § 6 67 2. The In te rn al Rev en ue 1 Serv ic e (“ IRS” ) as se ss edtax pe na lt ie s ag ai ns t D’Ang el o fo r th e u np ai d t ru stfun d ta xe s of t wo co m

pa ni es —Am eri care Pu lm o- Tech , Inc . (“ Pu lm o- Tech ”) an d i ts 2 pa ren t, Am eri care Serv ic es (“ Serv ic es ”) (t og et he r, “ th e Co m pa ni es ”). To
su cces sf ul ly chal le ng e h is li ab il it y un de r § 6 67 2, D’Ang el o m us t s ho w eithe r th at he was n otres po ns ib le forth e Co m pa ni es ’ ta x p aym en ts , or t ha t h is no n- pa ym en t
was no t wi ll fu l. See Mal lo y v. Un it edSta te s, 1 7 F .3d32 9, 3 31 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). D’ Ang el o c on ced edhi s s ta tu s as a res po ns ib le pe rs on at o ral arg um en t, b uthe cl ai m s t ha t d is pu te d i ss ue s o f m at eri al factpre ve nta fi nd in g o f wil lfu ln es s wi th ou t
Honora ble J ane A . Restani, J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ngby * desig nation. 26 U.S.C. § 6672(a) provide s in releva nt part: 1 Any person r equire d to collect, truthfully acc ount for, and pa

y over a ny tax imposed by

this ti tle who willfully

fails to collect suc h tax, or truthfully acc ount for a nd pay over suc h tax, or will fully attempts in any

manner to evade or def

eat any such tax or the pay

ment there of, shall, in addition to other pena lties provided by law, be liable to a pena lty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collecte d, or not ac counted f or and pa id over. Employ ers a

re r equire d to set aside the withheld por tion of their employees’ paychec ks 2 in a trust acc ount and then pay the contents of the trust over to the United States at appointed times. D’Ang elo conc edes tha t the withheld funds wer e not paid.

2a tr ia l. 3

A tax pa y er’s n on -p aym en t o f wit hh el d t ax es is wil lfu l i f he “ ei th er h ad actua l kno wled ge th atth e ta xe s wer e n otbe in g p ai d o r act edwit h areck le ss di sr eg ardof akn own or o bv io us ris k o f no np aym en t.” M al lo y , 17 F.3dat 3 32
. The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t D’Ang el o h adactua l kno wled ge of t he un pa idtax es ; D’ Ang el o c la im s t ha t t he co urt i m pr op erl y rel ie d o n c red ib il it y

ass es sm en ts . Howev er, we n eedno t re ach th e is su e o f actua l kno wled ge be cau se th e
un co nt es te d e vi de nc e supp orts th e co nc lu si on th atD’ Ang el o re ck le ss ly di sr eg ard edanob vi ou s ri skth atth e co m pa ni es wou ldno t p ay

th e wit hh el d t ax es . 4 D’ Ang el o “ is li ab le ‘ if h e (1 ) cl earl y ou gh t t o h av e kno wn t ha t (2 ) th ere was a g rav e ri skth atwit hh ol di ng tax es were n otbe in g p ai d a ndif (3 ) he was i n a po si ti on to fin d o utfor

cert ai n v ery eas il y .’ ” Mal lo y , 17 F.3dat 3 32 n.1 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (quo ti ng Wrig htv. Un it edSta te s, 8 09 F.2d42 5, 4 27 (7t h C ir.1 98 7) ). D’ Ang el o’s ac ti on s m eetth is st an da rd . He creat edPu lm o- Tech as asubs id ia ry of

“This cour

t review s a district court’ s g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo, applying the 3 same leg al standar ds used by the district court.” Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F .3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2010). Summary judgme nt is appropriate only if the evide nce, vie wed in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty , shows that “ther e is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We can a ffirm summary

judgme nt “on any

leg al ground,” e ven though the cour t did not 4 addre ss the rec kless disreg ard pr ong . Cuddebac k v. Fla. B d. of Educ., 381 F .3d 1230, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004). 3Serv ic es to tak e o ve r a s tru gg li ng co m pa ny m an ag edby his fri en d, Ba rb ara B orn. 5 D’ Ang el o was a fo un de r, di rect or , andpre si de ntor C EO of t he Co m pa ni es , and hi s was th e o nl y

na m e o n the ir b an k a cco un ts . Desp it e Bo rn ’s fai li ng s atth e pr ed eces so r co m

pa ny, he ret ai ne d h er as Pu lm o- Tech ’s m an ag er, an d P ul m o- Tech
so on be ga n l os in g m on ey . By th e ti m e h e d eci de d t o s hu t d own Pu lm o- Tech ’s of fic es , he kne w th atitwas i ns ol ve ntan d t ha t Bo rnha d fa il edto pa y tax es at h er fo rm er co m

pa ny. D’ Ang el o e xa m in edPu lm o- Tech ’s fin an ces in de ta il su ffi ci en t to de ci de to clo se th e co m pa ny. At t hi s t im e, th e ri skof n on -p aym en t o f th e wit hh ol di ng tax es was o bv io us , andif h e d idno t ac tu al ly kno w, he co ul d e as il y ha ve di sc ov eredth e tr

ut h. Cf . Mal lo y , 17 F.3dat 3 32 (fi nd in g n ot ic e o f an ob vi ou s ri skba se d o n fa il ur e to in ve st ig at e d es pi te kn owl ed ge of c om pa ny’ s fin an ci al di ffi cu lt ie s an d n on -p aym en t o f wit hh ol di ng tax es by pred eces so r
co m pa ny run by the same m an ag ers ). Fur th er, aft er re cei vi ng a no ti ce fr om th e IRS ay ear l at er, h e si m

pl y ga ve itto hi s at to rn ey

an d s ti ll di d n otin qu ire in to th e Co m pa ni es ’ ta x p aym en ts . The rec or d d em on st rat es th at , at a m in im um , D’ Ang el o reck le ss ly dis reg ard edanob vi ou s ri skth atth e Co m pa ni es wou ldno t p ay

th e ta xe s du e.

Service s was an inve stment vehicle a nd administrative hub through which D’ Ang elo 5 and other investors ac quired c ompanies and ma nag ed them. D’ Ang elo admits that he wa s the only office r with control of Ser vices’ ope rations. Service s’ tax li ability is derivative of

PulmoTec h’s followingthe latter’ s closing. 4Acco rd in gl y , we rejectD’ Ang el o’s cl ai m th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin fin di ng hi s n on -p aym en t wi ll fu l, an d we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f
su m m ary jud ge m en t i n fa vo r of th e g ov ern m en t.

5