Opinion ID: 221252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stabilization Act

Text: Conway argues that even if personal liability would normally attach under these circumstances, the court should find that this case is extraordinary because of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent Stabilization Act. Generally, it is not a defense to liability under § 6672 that payment of the collected taxes would threaten the continued existence of the business entity. See Bowen v. United States, 836 F.2d 965, 967 (5th Cir.1988) (stating that the taxpayers' use of the collected taxes for other corporate expenses made the United States `an unwilling joint venturer in the corporate enterprise' (internal citations omitted)); see also Mazo, 591 F.2d at 1154 ([I]f a corporation has only sufficient cash to pay net wages, and does so, there may literally be no funds to constitute the corpus of the trust, but the responsible persons are nevertheless liable for failure to collect the withholding taxes.). Conway argues, however, that the Stabilization Act authorized National to use the withheld taxes as working capital. We disagree. Nothing in the plain language of the Act evinces an intent to allow the airlines to use the excise taxes as working capital. By the plain terms of the Stabilization Act, its effect was to allow airlines to defer paying over the collected excise taxes until January 15, 2002, as authorized by the IRS. Because these taxes are collected from passengers, and were not intended to become the property of National, more than a mere statutory deferral of payment would be required to evince an intent to allow the collected taxes to be used for operational purposes. Because the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, we need not examine the legislative history. [7] Similarly, nothing in the act demonstrates congressional intent to render payment of the excise taxes beyond the ordinary course of business.