Opinion ID: 475275
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment for Calderone.

Text: 37 We must now decide whether, bearing in mind that the burden of proof is on plaintiff and that the record must be read in the light most favorable to the government, the district court erred in finding plaintiff Calderone entitled to summary judgment. Calderone's position, accepted by the district court, is based on Calderone's assertion that on August 1, 1975, when he purportedly was first informed by then-controller Robert Kastens that the taxes were delinquent, he immediately ordered delivery of a corporate check in the amount of $33,545.24 for payment of the taxes. 4 Calderone submits that this testimony requires a finding that he did not willfully fail to pay the taxes. Calderone concedes that he is a responsible party. 38 A failure to pay over taxes is willful, for section 6672 purposes, if it is voluntary, knowing and intentional even though it is not done with a bad purpose or an evil motive.... 39 One who pays other creditors, rather than pay withholding taxes to the government, is liable for a willful failure to pay such taxes.... 40 Barnett v. United States, 594 F.2d 219, 222 (9th Cir.1979) (citations omitted); accord McGlothin v. United States, 720 F.2d 6, 9 (6th Cir.1983); Braden v. United States, 442 F.2d 342, 344 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 912, 92 S.Ct. 229, 30 L.Ed.2d 185 (1971). 41 The government presented evidence that during the relevant period, Calderone wrote some forty corporate checks to creditors while no payments were made on the social security taxes. In addition, Hornbaker deposed that Calderone requested that he sign a corporate check on April 18, 1975, made out to Calderone in the amount of $49,069.97, for payment on a lease of property from Calderone to the corporation. However, Calderone has asserted that the evidence demonstrates that prior to August 1, 1975, he had no knowledge the withholding taxes were not being paid. 42 The parties dispute whether it must be shown that the responsible party has actual knowledge of the nonpayment or whether willfulness also exists where a responsible person pays other creditors with a reckless disregard as to whether the trust fund taxes have been paid over to the government. There is authority to support the latter position, advanced by the government. In Teel v. United States, 529 F.2d 903 (9th Cir.1976), the court adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Kalb v. United States, 505 F.2d 506 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 979, 95 S.Ct. 1981, 44 L.Ed.2d 471 (1975), that for nonpayment to be willful there must be either knowledge of nonpayment or reckless disregard of whether the payments were being made. 529 F.2d at 905 (emphasis added). As the Court of Claims has stated: 43 More than mere negligence is required for willfulness; a person is not willful if as a result of negligence he is unaware of the default in the payment of payroll taxes.... But willful conduct may also include a reckless disregard for obvious or known risks. ... 44