Baimbridge
Baimbridge v. United States
Opinion
Opinion
Gonzalez, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently before the court is defendant-counterclaimant the United States of America’s (the “government”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a series of tax penalties assessed against plaintiff-coun-terdefendant Horace Wayne Baimbridge (“Baimbridge”) for failure to collect and remit payroll taxes on behalf of Soil Technology Laboratories, Inc. (“Soil Tech”). The undisputed facts are as follows:
Baimbridge formed Soil Tech in 1984, and was its sole shareholder until the company ceased operations in 1996. In the 1990s Soil Tech experienced severe financial trouble. During certain quarters of 1990, Soil Tech failed to pay its payroll tax liabilities. From 1990 until August 1994, Soil Tech was able to keep current with its payroll tax liabilities, although it continued to experience general financial difficulties and continued to owe back taxes from the 1990 periods.