The short answer is no (IF that person was not a shareholder).
The S-Corp, as a pass-through entity, is not actually taxed at all though.
The S-Corp does the 1120-S (an informational return, used to figure gain or loss) and then the gains or losses are "passed through" to the shareholders on a statement K-1 (which flows, then, to the shareholder's own tax return.
So, the S-Corp never really has tax liabilities
, the shareholders do.
NOW, the only time an OFFICER (non-=shareholder) can be held responsible for the debts (of any kind) of a corporation is where it can be shown that the officer obligated the company, in a way that WAS in line with their own authority - you might find this in a job description for the officer.
Just to help you maybe "see around some corners," the place where IRS will have some legs to stand on will be regarding taxes that came from the time where you father WAS a shareholder OR where they will try to make the case that he let the shares go in order TO escape taxes, and that some of what was received as salary was really in effect dividends
But, generally, if the employee-officer of the company only received a salary, and paid their taxes on that salary, and was not an owner, then they would not be liable for taxes based on profits from the s-Corp. Only the shareholders would.