Gephart v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 469 · 1987
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Rem (1994), Ruth v. United States (1987)
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ohio Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1462 · 26 U.S.C. § 3102 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 6671 · 26 U.S.C. § 6672 · 26 U.S.C. § 7501
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Parham v. Cortese · Universal Builders, Inc. v. Clark · Calderone v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“authority to direct payment of creditors.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is not necessary that the individual in question have the final word as to which creditors should be paid in order to be subject to liability under this section. The determinative question is whether the individual has significant control over the enterprise’s finances. No single factor is dispositive in evaluating whether the individual had significant control; that determination must be made in light of the totality of the circumstances. Relevant considerations include whether the individual: (1) is an officer or member of the board of directors, (2) owns shares or possesses an entrepreneurial stake in the company, (3) is active in the management of day-to-day affairs of the company, (4) has the ability to hire and fire employees, (5) makes decisions regarding which, when and in what order outstanding debts or taxes will be paid, (6) exercises control over daily bank accounts and disbursement records, and (7) has cheek-signing authority. Thus, though § 6672(a) is not meant to ensnare those who have merely technical authority or titular designation, the section encompasses all those connected closely enough with the business to prevent the tax default from occurring ... To be willful, conduct need not stem from an evil motive or intent to defraud, but it must amount to more than negligence. The principal component of willfulness is knowledge: a responsible person acted willfully within the meaning of § 6672(a) if he (a) knew of the company’s obligation to pay withholdin”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.