Ashley C. Scott v. United States Department of Treasury, 825 F.3d 1275

Ashley Scott worked at her father’s company, Scott Air, from 1995–2008; she was nominally corporate secretary (appointed without her consent) and had limited duties and hours.
Company withheld payroll taxes but, beginning in 2004–2005, did not remit those trust fund taxes despite having some account funds; the company closed in 2008.
IRS assessed Trust Fund Recovery Penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 against Scott for 13 quarters (Mar. 31, 2004–Dec. 31, 2007); Scott filed for abatement and sued for refund and to avoid responsibility or obtain contribution from others.
District court granted partial summary judgment holding Scott a “responsible person” for all quarters and held as a matter of law she was willful for the 2007 quarters; other quarters’ willfulness submitted to a jury.
After trial, the jury found Scott willfully failed to pay for 6 of 9 quarters at issue; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the willfulness rulings but vacated the summary judgment on responsible-person liability and remanded for trial on that issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scott was a “responsible person” under § 6672	Scott lacked authority/control over corporate finances; duties were clerical and limited	Government: Scott held officer title, signed checks and some Forms 941, and interacted with accountants, indicating responsibility	Vacated district court summary judgment; material factual disputes exist, so issue for jury
Whether Scott acted willfully in failing to pay trust fund taxes (2007 quarters)	Scott argued she was not willful as a matter of law	Government argued evidence supported willfulness for 2007 quarters	District court’s summary judgment on willfulness for 2007 affirmed on appeal
Whether pretrial denial of Scott’s motion on willfulness can be reviewed after full trial	Scott sought appellate review of district court’s denial	Government argued issue waived/not preserved and not reviewable post-trial	Appeal rejected; court will not review pretrial summary-judgment denial after full trial
Whether jury’s willfulness findings for pre-2007 quarters should be vacated	Scott initially challenged but later abandoned this on appeal	Government defended jury verdict and preservation of issues	Scott disavowed direct challenge; appellate relief not granted

Thosteson v. United States, 331 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003) (defines responsible-person inquiry and willfulness framework)
Roth v. United States, 779 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding instruction from owner not to pay IRS does not absolve an otherwise responsible person)
Jay v. United States, 865 F.2d 1175 (10th Cir. 1989) (refusing summary judgment where factual disputes about authority/control existed)
Mazo v. United States, 591 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir. 1979) (responsibility turns on status, duty, authority; factual inquiry)
Williams v. United States, 931 F.2d 805 (11th Cir. 1991) (president/officer with check-writing authority held responsible)
George v. United States, 819 F.2d 1008 (11th Cir. 1987) (lists indicia of responsibility: office, financial control, disbursement authority)
Thibodeau v. United States, 828 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1987) (control of daily operations and check-signing supports responsibility)
Lind v. United Parcel Serv., 254 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2001) (pretrial summary-judgment denials are typically not reviewable after full trial)