Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Safayan
1995 Ind. LEXIS 108, 1995 WL 440261, 654 N.E.2d 270 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A high-ranking corporate officer, particularly one who is also a director and major shareholder, is personally liable for unremitted trust taxes (gross retail and withholding taxes) if they possess the authority to ensure their payment, even if they delegate day-to-day financial management or claim to be a passive investor.
Facts:
- In 1985, Zinat Safayan and her husband, Dr. Esfandiar Safayan, partnered with Dennis and Teressa Grubb to incorporate G.D.G.F., Inc. and opened Gib & Dengil's Restaurant.
- The Safayans contributed $43,000 for 51% of the corporation's stock, and Mrs. Safayan became the president, while the Grubbs contributed their restaurant expertise for 49% of the stock.
- The Grubbs managed the day-to-day operations of the restaurant; Mrs. Grubb served as treasurer and secretary, responsible for the corporate bank account and financial records, and the Grubbs were the only signatories on the corporate checking account.
- Mrs. Grubb filed the restaurant's corporate income tax return for 1988, and Mrs. Safayan filed the 1989 and 1990 returns in her capacity as president.
- In January 1991, Mrs. Safayan discovered the restaurant had failed to pay Indiana gross retail taxes, withholding taxes for several years, and was in default on federal taxes and private debts.
- Mrs. Safayan promptly took charge, placed G.D.G.F. into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed appropriate tax forms with the Indiana Department of State Revenue while disclaiming personal responsibility, and later formed Z.E.A., Inc. to purchase the restaurant equipment and keep the business open.
Procedural Posture:
- The Indiana Department of State Revenue (Department) assessed Mrs. Safayan for G.D.G.F., Inc.'s unpaid taxes and penalties for 1989, 1990, and 1991.
- Mrs. Safayan challenged the assessment, and the Department conducted a hearing.
- The Department subsequently found Mrs. Safayan to be a 'responsible officer' and personally liable for the sales and withholding taxes.
- Mrs. Safayan appealed the Department's decision to the Indiana Tax Court.
- The Indiana Tax Court entered summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Safayan, holding that she did not have a duty to remit the taxes because she acted more as an investor than as the restaurant's manager.
- The Department filed a petition for review of the Tax Court's decision with the Indiana Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a corporate president and major shareholder, who delegates day-to-day financial management to others and claims to be a passive investor, personally liable for unremitted trust taxes when she possesses the inherent authority to ensure their payment?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, Chief Justice
Yes, a corporate president and major shareholder, even if delegating day-to-day financial management, is personally liable for unremitted trust taxes if she possesses the inherent authority to ensure their payment. Trust taxes, like gross retail and withholding taxes, are held by businesses in trust for the state, making individuals responsible for their remittance personally liable. The statutory duty to remit trust taxes applies to any officer or employee who has the authority to ensure their payment. The court presumes that a high-ranking officer who is also a director and major shareholder, such as Mrs. Safayan, has sufficient control over the company's finances to give rise to this duty. This presumption can be rebutted, but Safayan's claims of delegating responsibility to the Grubbs and being merely a passive investor are insufficient. The court reasoned that an officer's position of authority, regardless of whether it is actively exercised, carries the duty, citing a previous case where a president's liability was upheld despite a medical problem preventing active management. Mrs. Safayan's swift and decisive actions (sacking the Grubbs, initiating bankruptcy, forming a new corporation) upon discovering the financial problems demonstrated her actual authority and control when exercised. The court explicitly rejected this 'Sergeant Schultz defense' of knowing nothing and doing nothing, emphasizing that individuals in positions of power cannot look the other way while trust funds are misused. Federal case law interpreting similar withholding tax provisions supports this view, holding that the existence of authority, irrespective of its actual exercise, is determinative of liability.
Dissenting - Dickson, J.
Dickson, J., dissented without a separate opinion, implicitly disagreeing with the majority's finding of personal liability for Mrs. Safayan.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of personal liability for corporate officers regarding trust taxes in Indiana, moving beyond mere day-to-day involvement to focus on inherent authority derived from one's position. It establishes a strong presumption of a 'duty to remit' for high-ranking officers and major shareholders, making it difficult for them to escape liability by claiming delegation or passive investment. The ruling strengthens the state's ability to collect these essential public funds by preventing corporate leaders from avoiding responsibility through ignorance or inaction. This places a greater onus on corporate governance to ensure compliance, reinforcing that authority carries commensurate responsibility, especially when state funds are involved.
