Filed: May 17, 2000
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: The text for the new footnote 8 is as follows: We do not, mean to suggest that in all § 6672 cases a district court is, precluded from considering evidence from outside the quarters in, question., Alter the subsequent footnotes' numbering accordingly.
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 98-2143
ARNOLD W. VINICK,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on March 8, 2000, is
amended as follows:
Page 20, line 9: Add a new footnote number “8” after the
period ending the sentence: “Responsibility during one period
does not equate to responsibility in all periods.”
The text for the new footnote 8 is as follows: “We do not
mean to suggest that in all § 6672 cases a district court is
precluded from considering evidence from outside the quarters in
question. For example, behavior in one quarter, depending on
the circumstances, could cast light on one's status as a
responsible person in other quarters. Because one's function
and status can change between quarters, however, it would be
erroneous based solely on evidence from one quarter
automatically to conclude that a person is responsible in
another quarter.”
Alter the subsequent footnotes' numbering accordingly.
