Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenatrialwill

subpoenawill

Related Cases

Trohimovich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 77 T.C. 252

Facts

Stanley J. Trohimovich and his brother operated a Volvo automobile business and filed tax returns that were incomplete and non-compliant with IRS requirements. After multiple refusals to provide necessary documentation during audits and subsequent court proceedings, the IRS determined their tax liabilities using indirect methods. Despite being ordered by the court to produce records for a trial, Stanley repeatedly disobeyed these orders, leading to a contempt citation.

Stanley and his brother, Richard, now deceased, operated as partners a Volvo automobile business in Aberdeen, Wash., under the name Grays Harbor Motors. They and their wives, Anna Mae and Merita, respectively, filed joint income tax returns for 1971 reporting income from Grays Harbor Motors.

Issue

Did Stanley J. Trohimovich willfully disobey court orders and subpoenas, thereby committing criminal contempt of court?

Rule

Criminal contempt is defined as the willful disobedience of a court order, which is punishable by imprisonment or fines. The intent necessary for criminal contempt is the knowledge that one's actions are wrongful.

Criminal contempt has a punitive purpose, to punish defiance of a court order, i.e, to vindicate the authority of the Court.

Analysis

The court found that Stanley knowingly and intentionally disobeyed its orders to produce financial records, which were essential for the trial regarding his tax liabilities. His arguments against the court's authority and the validity of the orders were deemed frivolous and without merit, as he had been repeatedly informed that such claims were invalid. The court emphasized that disobedience of a court order, regardless of the perceived legality of the order, constitutes contempt.

There is no doubt that Stanley knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court, and that such disobedience has delayed and obstructed the orderly and proper disposition of this case.

Conclusion

The court adjudged Stanley J. Trohimovich guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days of imprisonment for his refusal to comply with court orders.

Based on the history of this case, Stanley's actions with respect to his taxes over the past 10 years, and the frivolous character of his arguments in this case, we think there can be no doubt that Stanley intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately refused to obey the orders of this Court for the purpose of delaying the determination of his and his family's tax liabilities.

Who won?

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue prevailed in this case as the court upheld the contempt citation against Stanley for his willful disobedience of court orders.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mourad v. Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n, 186 Mich.App. 715, 465 N.W.2d 395, 59 USLW 2495, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,861, 6 IER Cases 193

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 92 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1539

Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 57 F.Supp. 680

Cultum v. Heritage House Realtors, Inc., 103 Wash.2d 623, 694 P.2d 630, 53 USLW 2387

Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014