finding sufficient evidence for the jury to have inferred that plaintiff had “effective power and corresponding duty to insure that the corporate obligation to the Government would be fulfilled[]” because Brown cosigned all corporate checks, actively participated in efforts to secure financing, and made the decision to terminate corporate operations
How later courts described this case
- finding sufficient evidence for the jury to have inferred that plaintiff had “effective power and corresponding duty to insure that the corporate obligation to the Government would be fulfilled[]” because Brown cosigned all corporate checks, actively participated in efforts to secure financing, and made the decision to terminate corporate operations
- stating that a corporate officer need not have the final word as to what checks are prepared to be held a responsible person
- noting that, to be deemed “responsible,” the law does not require a corporate officer to have the final word with regard to what checks are to be paid to whom
- “responsible person need not have final say on payment of bffls and taxes”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.