Michael Quigley v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 17-51116 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-51116 Document: 00514543001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-51116 Summary Calendar FILED July 6, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MICHAEL QUIGLEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CV-459 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Quigley paid $54,635.64 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for his alleged failure to pay withholding or “Trust Fund” taxes related to former employees of Quigley’s now-bankrupt restaurant corporation. He then filed this suit for refund of taxes, attorney’s fees, and damages. After considering the magistrate-judge’s Report and Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-51116 Document: 00514543001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2018 No. 17-51116 Recommendation of August 2017, the district court issued its Order on Report and Recommendation of October 19, 2017, and its final take-nothing judgment of even date, granting the government’s partial motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and denying Quigley’s motion for summary judgment. We have now reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and Quigley’s record excerpts. Despite the cogent arguments of counsel for Quigley as reflected in the brief and reply brief filed in this court, we are satisfied in the end that the district court correctly and properly disposed of this case, essentially for the analysis and reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.