Legal Opinion
Crompton-Richmond Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 24, 1970No. 66 Civ. 3632PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANSFIELD, District Judge.
Vincent De Sousa, a third-party defendant, moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., claiming that a tax penalty against him has been abated and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) cannot therefore reinstate it against him. For the reasons stated below the motion is denied.
In April, 1964, the IRS assessed the penalty tax in question against Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc. (“CromptonRichmond”), pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672, 1 based on the failure of a bankrupt, Dynamic Techniques, Inc., to pay withholding income and employment taxes during the period…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Phillips v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Terrance M. Kelly v. George O. Lethert, as District Director of Internal Revenue, District of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- Carlin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951
- Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc., Factors v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Carney Coal Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Uslife Title Insurance Company of Dallas on Behalf of Lillian v. Mathews v. Paul R. Harbison v. United States of America Acting by and Through the Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Gens v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980
- In Re: Stuart Becker, Debtor. Stuart Becker, Debtor-Appellant v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Bugge v. USACourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Williams v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1973
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.