## Facts

- Steelograph Business Interiors, Inc. (Steelograph) was incorporated in Illinois and had its principal place of business in Illinois.
- Roger C. Vorbau was Steelograph’s president and directed the company’s financial decisions, including which creditors were paid and whether payroll taxes were paid.
- Robert R. Schoot was a Steelograph employee who performed ministerial tasks at Vorbau’s direction and did not control payroll, business decisions, or creditor payments.
- The IRS assessed Schoot and Vorbau jointly and severally for a 100% penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 totaling $47,194.53 for willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over withholding and FICA taxes for multiple quarters spanning 1980–1982.
- Schoot paid only a small portion of the assessment (and received a small credit from a refund application); Vorbau paid nothing (aside from a refund credit applied by the IRS).
- Vorbau later moved out of Illinois.
- Schoot filed a tax refund suit against the United States in the Northern District of Illinois (where Schoot resided), invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and alleging the § 6672 penalty was erroneously or improperly assessed and/or collected.
- The United States filed a compulsory counterclaim against Schoot for the unpaid balance of the § 6672 assessment and, with leave of court, added Vorbau as an additional defendant on the counterclaim.
- Schoot also asserted a cross-claim against Vorbau seeking to shift or share responsibility for any § 6672 liability.
- Vorbau moved to dismiss the Government’s counterclaim against him on personal-jurisdiction, venue, and joinder grounds, and moved to dismiss Schoot’s cross-claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. In a § 1346(a)(1) tax refund action, may the Government maintain its compulsory counterclaim for the unpaid § 6672 penalty and add a jointly assessed person (Vorbau) as an additional defendant on that counterclaim, despite Vorbau’s out-of-state residence at the time of suit?
2. Did the Northern District of Illinois have a basis to hear Schoot’s cross-claim against Vorbau seeking to reallocate any § 6672 liability?

## Decision

- The court denied Vorbau’s motion to dismiss the United States’ counterclaim.
- The court rejected Vorbau’s objections to personal jurisdiction, venue, and joinder as to the Government’s counterclaim arising from the same § 6672 assessment challenged in Schoot’s refund suit.
- The court granted Vorbau’s motion to dismiss Schoot’s cross-claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- In a federal tax refund action under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), the United States may assert a counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the assessment at issue, so the court can determine the parties’ tax liability in the same case.
- A compulsory counterclaim arising from the same assessment does not require an independent venue showing separate from the venue supporting the refund suit.
- Under the Federal Rules, an additional party may be joined to a counterclaim when the claim against the added party and the original counterclaim share common questions of law or fact and stem from the same underlying transaction or occurrence (here, the same § 6672 assessment).
- A private claim by one assessed person against another to reallocate § 6672 exposure requires its own basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction; absent a federal cause of action or diversity (or another jurisdictional grant), it cannot proceed merely because it is related to the Government’s tax claim.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the United States to pursue its compulsory § 6672 collection counterclaim in the refund case and to add Vorbau—who had been jointly assessed on the same penalty—as an additional counterclaim defendant, but dismissed Schoot’s cross-claim against Vorbau because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over that private dispute within this action.


Schoot v. United States, 664 F. Supp. 293 (1987)