United States v. First National Bank of Circle
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
652 F.2d 882 (1981)
Beginning in the spring of 1970, Fort Belknap Builders, Inc. (Builders) borrowed money from the First National Bank of Circle (Bank) (defendant) and one of the Bank’s affiliates in order to construct houses. From the fourth quarter of 1970 through the end of 1971, Builders failed to pay federal withholding and Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes. Builders did pay its employees’ wages, however. During the latter part of 1971, Builders’ account with the Bank was significantly overdrawn. In 1974, the United States (plaintiff) sued the Bank pursuant to Section 3505(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposed liability upon lenders who supplied funds to employers who failed to pay federal withholding taxes where the loans were specifically made for the payment of employee wages and where the lender knew that the employer did not intend or was not able to pay the required taxes. The Bank responded to the complaint with a general denial; it did not specifically deny that it had supplied funds to Builders. In 1978, the United States and the Bank agreed to a pretrial order that set forth a statement of agreed facts and a summary of each party’s contentions. The agreed facts included a statement that between March 16, 1970 and December 31, 1971, the Bank made numerous loans and advances to Builders. The pretrial order set forth five contentions by the Bank: that the Bank lacked knowledge; that its loans to Builders were not specifically made to pay wages; that Builders was able to pay its taxes; that Builders actually paid its taxes; and that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations and laches. At the start of trial, the Bank moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had not supplied funds to Builders. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the Bank was not a supplier but had merely arranged, as an agent, for participating banks to furnish the loans. The United States appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Schwarzer, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.