Kastengren v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (1993)
Complete opinion retrieved October 17, 2026 from CAP’s Wisconsin Reports copy, an unofficial host. No. 92-1245, decided October 7, 1993; Sundby, J., with Gartzke and Dykman, JJ.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/wis-2d/179/cases/0587-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts
Kastengren voluntarily bought Uncle Harry’s equipment and inventory. The entire price went to its secured bank; he neither withheld for the corporation’s delinquent sales taxes nor requested clearance. DOR documented repeated collection efforts against the defunct corporation and assessed USD 23,010 against the buyer. The circuit court held DOR should first pursue the corporation’s former officer, but rejected the buyer’s argument that payment to the bank eliminated liability.
Holding
Reversed on DOR’s appeal and affirmed on the buyer’s cross-appeal. Under § 77.52(18) and Tax 11.91, the purchaser’s withholding duty was not excused because all proceeds went to the secured lender. The buyer was not the financial institution or mortgagee that foreclosed its loan within Tax 11.91(1)(d). DOR’s duty first to direct collection against the predecessor concerned the selling retailer, not an obligation to exhaust a separate responsible-officer assessment first.
Reasoning and limits
The statute imposed liability up to the purchase price when the buyer failed to withhold. Paying the bank did not transform a voluntary asset purchase into an exempt foreclosure acquisition. The opinion’s 1993 agency-deference discussion is historical reasoning and is not represented as the present standard of judicial review. The current full Tax 11.91 separately excludes sheriff sales, bankruptcy-trustee sales and the other listed transactions. This case does not hold that every forced-sale buyer has successor liability.
Good-law status
Narrow holding verified from the complete opinion. Comprehensive subsequent treatment, including the continued force of all review-standard reasoning, remains needs_verification; no automatic still-good label is assigned.
Rechecked 2026-10-18: a CourtListener citation search (results retained in schema/verification/wisconsin-evidence-2026-10-18/) for “179 Wis. 2d 587” returned no later opinion citing it; § 77.52(18) continues to impose successor liability up to the purchase price. Not a commercial citator check.
Applies in
wisconsin · businesses-and-going-concerns
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against current primary sources before acting.