Dudley B. and La Donna K. Merkel - Page 39

                                        -39-                                          
               Based on a proposed finding of fact by respondent, to which            
          petitioners stated that they had no objection, we have found that           
          the State tax assessment was for sales and use taxes that were              
          never collected by SLC.  That being the case, under the North               
          Carolina statute, Dudley Merkel and David Hepburn could be liable           
          as corporate officers only if they were responsible officers who            
          knew, or should have known, that the tax was not being collected.           
          There is no persuasive evidence that they knew, or should have              
          known, that the tax was not being collected.  Also, N.C. Gen.               
          Stat. sec. 105-253(b) (1991) (flush language) appears to grant              
          the Secretary of the Department of Revenue some discretion in               
          assessing and collecting the tax from responsible corporate                 
          officers.                                                                   
               The Department of Revenue never proposed nor made an                   
          assessment against any of petitioners relating to the State tax             
          assessment.  Petitioners have failed to prove that any assessment           
          was ever likely to be made against Dudley Merkel and David                  
          Hepburn.  Therefore, we have no basis to find that, as of the               
          measurement date, the State tax exposure represented an                     
          obligation to pay that would result in petitioners' being called            
          upon to pay any amount on account thereof.                                  
          III.  Conclusion                                                            
               Petitioners have failed to prove that they would be called             
          upon to pay any amount with respect to either petitioners'                  
          guarantees or the State tax exposure, and, thus, neither                    




Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011