Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States

PETITIONER: Jersey Shore State Bank
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Nassau County School Board

DOCKET NO.: 85-1736
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

CITATION: 479 US 442 (1987)
ARGUED: Dec 08, 1986
DECIDED: Jan 20, 1987

ADVOCATES:
Alan I. Horowitz - on behalf of Respondent
Martin A. Flayhart - on behalf of Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 08, 1986 in Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 20, 1987 in Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States

William H. Rehnquist:

I have the opinion of the Court to announce the No. 85-1736, Jersey Shore State Bank versus United States.

This case involves the provision of the Internal Revenue Code which requires an employer to withhold income and social security taxes from the wages of its employees and to pay over those taxes to the government, but in some instances, a person other than the employers such as one who lends money to the employer, may indirectly or directly pay the employees wages.

If the taxes required to be withheld from the employees wages are not paid, the statute makes such a lender liable for a sum equal to the unpaid taxes.

In this case, the government brought suit against the Jersey Shore State Bank which is located in Central Pennsylvania, alleging that Jersey Shore was a lender liable for amounts reflecting unpaid withholding taxes owned by the employer.

The District Court ruled in favor of the bank.

The Third Circuit held that the bank was liable to the government.

As explained in a unanimous opinion filed today, we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Congress did not intend the notice requirement of the Internal Revenue Code to apply where the government seeks to collect unpaid withholding taxes from a third party lender.

So, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.