ROY CRACCHIOLO V DEPT OF TREASURY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROY CRACCHIOLO,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 183955
LC No. 215668
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Reilly and J.L. Martlew,* JJ.
REILLY, J. (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent.
The defendant advised plaintiff on February 9, 1993, of its position that plaintiff was to be held
responsible as an officer of the corporation. Plaintiff’s attorney wrote defendant on February 26, 1993,
that plaintiff should not be held responsible, and that he had taken the same position with the I.R.S. A
copy of the I.R.S. interview notes was enclosed. The attorney offered to meet with a representative of
the treasury department. On March 22, 1993, defendant sent a final assessment, reiterating the
responsibility of plaintiff as an officer, and advising plaintiff of the appeal process. On April 28, 1993,
the treasury department wrote plaintiff stating “The assessment will stand as issued.” By then, the thirty
five day appeal period had lapsed. I do not believe these documents show that defendant was willing to
reconsider its position, or that a settlement was being negotiated. Curis Big Boy v Dept of Treasury,
206 Mich App 139; 520 NW2d 369 (1994). Plaintiff was not led to believe that he should continue to
negotiate rather than appeal. I would affirm.
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
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.
