Anthony Samango, Jr. v. United States, 19-2682

SS Frames failed to remit federal withholding taxes for 2008; the IRS assessed $878,298 against Anthony J. Samango, Jr. under 26 U.S.C. § 6672.
Samango was president and a shareholder of both SS Frames and Carson Concrete; the companies shared an office, phone number, employees, and appeared functionally indistinguishable.
Samango signed SS Frames’ corporate resolution, worker’s compensation application (stating he oversaw "entire operations on a daily basis"), and multiple state and federal tax returns for 2007–2009.
Carson Concrete (whose bank accounts Samango controlled) paid SS Frames’ wages, workers’ compensation, unemployment taxes, and union dues, but no steps were taken to ensure SS Frames’ federal withholding taxes were paid.
Samango declined the IRS summonses and, in deposition, offered conclusory assertions (limited, temporary officer role; unnamed "two minority individuals" as owners) without documentary support.
The district court granted summary judgment for the government; the Third Circuit affirmed, finding the IRS assessment entitled to a rebuttable presumption that Samango was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay taxes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Samango a "responsible person" under § 6672?	Samango says he had only a brief, limited officer role and unnamed minority owners were responsible.	Government points to corporate documents, signed tax returns, dual presidencies, and control over payments showing significant control.	Held: Samango was a responsible person — his duties, signatures, and control over finances rebut his claims.
Did Samango "willfully" fail to pay the taxes?	Samango argues he did not use SS Frames checks and treated the companies as unrelated.	Government argues he knew or recklessly disregarded unpaid withholdings while directing/allowing payments to other obligations.	Held: Willfulness proven — Samango knew or recklessly disregarded unpaid taxes and took no corrective steps.

Greenberg v. United States, 46 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 1994) (defines "responsible person" and willfulness standards under § 6672)
Quattrone Accountants, Inc. v. I.R.S., 895 F.2d 921 (3d Cir. 1990) (responsibility focuses on status, duty, authority; multiple responsible persons possible)
Brounstein v. United States, 979 F.2d 953 (3d Cir. 1992) (IRS assessment carries rebuttable presumption; discusses willfulness/reckless disregard)
Psaty v. United States, 442 F.2d 1154 (3d Cir. 1971) (taxpayer bears burden to rebut IRS assessment by preponderance)
Fior D’Italia, Inc. v. United States, 536 U.S. 238 (2002) (tax assessments are entitled to a legal presumption of correctness)
Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2009) (conclusory, self-serving affidavits are insufficient to defeat summary judgment)