Question

In: Accounting

Brief the following case: Joseph Radtke, S.c., Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 895 F.2d...

Brief the following case:

Joseph Radtke, S.c., Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 895 F.2d 1196 (7th Cir. 1990)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/895/1196/46650/

Solutions

Expert Solution

The question presented by this case is whether "dividend" payments made in 1982 by Joseph Radtke, S.C., a Subchapter S corporation, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, lawyer Joseph Radtke, its sole shareholder-employee, were actually wages subject to Social Security and unemployment taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), I.R.C. Secs. 3101-3126, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), I.R.C. Secs. 3301-3311. The corporation contests the assessment of these employment taxes.

Petitioner Radtke Corporation was incorporated as a small business corporation in 1979 by Joseph Radtke to provide legal services in Milwaukee. He was the firm's sole director and shareholder and its only full-time employee. His annual base salary was $0 through 1982 but he received $18,225 in dividends that year from the corporation. He paid personal income tax on the dividends, and the corporation also declared the $18,225 on its Small Business Corporation income tax return. However, the Radtke corporation did not pay FICA and FUTA taxes for any portion of the $18,225. The Internal Revenue Service deemed the "dividends" to be in the nature of wages and therefore assessed deficiencies against the corporation for failing to pay the FICA and FUTA taxes. The corporation paid $366.44, which was the full amount of the FUTA tax assessment, and also paid $593.75 toward the assessed FICA taxes. After losing its claim for refund, the corporation filed suit in the court below under 28 U.S.C.


Related Solutions

brief case of united states v. liebo, united states court of appeals, eight circuit, 1991,923 F.2d...
brief case of united states v. liebo, united states court of appeals, eight circuit, 1991,923 F.2d 1308
CASE: HAROLD DAVIS and ENID DAVIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES COURT...
CASE: HAROLD DAVIS and ENID DAVIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 861 F.2d 558 November 14, 1988 Plaintiff-appellants Harold and Enid Davis claimed charitable deductions under IRC section 170 for funds they sent to their two sons for their support while they served as full-time unpaid missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay-Saints at the New York City Mission and at the New Zealand/Cook Islands Mission. These...
Brief the following case: Harris v united states 1.Citation. 2 Facts. ... 3 Issue. ... 4...
Brief the following case: Harris v united states 1.Citation. 2 Facts. ... 3 Issue. ... 4 Decision. ... 5 Reason.
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) United States v. Bestfoods 113...
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) United States v. Bestfoods 113 F.3d 572 (1998) SOUTER, JUSTICE The United States brought this action under §107(a)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) against, among others, respondent CPC International, Inc., the parent corporation of the defunct Ott Chemical Co. (Ott II), for the costs of cleaning up industrial waste generated by Ott II’s chemical plant. Section 107(a)(2) authorizes suits against, among others,...
please discuss the case involving the United States of America versus Ross Ulbricht.
please discuss the case involving the United States of America versus Ross Ulbricht.
please discuss the case involving the United States of America versus Ross Ulbricht.
please discuss the case involving the United States of America versus Ross Ulbricht.
what is the major outcome of the United States v. Mexico case in 1982?
what is the major outcome of the United States v. Mexico case in 1982?
Case 32.2 - United States v. O’Hagan" Please respond to the following: Assess whether a securities...
Case 32.2 - United States v. O’Hagan" Please respond to the following: Assess whether a securities firm will be more likely to modify its behavior in business based upon the holding of this case. If you were employed in the securities profession, state one particular way in which you modify your approach to be transparent to both your client and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
comparative advantage of the United States of America
Select a country of your choice (other than Saudi Arabia) and discuss its comparative advantage—the sources and the challenges. What is the role of the government? Does the government provide additional investment? What could increase their advantage?  
brief the court decision entitled United States v. Hamilton, __4th Ct. App. __ 2012 
brief the court decision entitled United States v. Hamilton, __4th Ct. App. __ 2012 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT