that the plaintiff was a responsible person because he: owned 100 percent of the corporation’s voting stock; acted as chairman of the board of directors; had authority to sign corporate checks and to borrow money for the corporation; and played a large role in obtaining financing for the corporation. Id. at 966-67. Significantly, the Tsoup-rake court added: Although [another corporate director] ran the day to day operations of the corporation and agreed to the assessment against him, the Plaintiff was not relieved of responsibility. More than one person may be a “responsible person” of a corporation.... the Plaintiff had the power to control the financial affairs of the corporation through his exclusive ability to finance its operations. Id. at 967. See also Thosteson, 331 F.3d 1294 (<HOLDING>); George v. United States, 819 F.2d 1008, 1011
holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding that statements of a company vice president were admissible against the principal owner of the company under fedrevid 801d2d as an admission made by the partys agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment holding that a disclosure by a vice president and sales manager of a corporation did not constitute waiver because he did not seek authorization from the board of directors holding that the responsibility of another did not absolve the plaintiff of his own responsibility where the plaintiff helped incorporate the company served as vice president and president owned varying levels of stock and possessed authority to hire and fire