- 2 -
7433, I.R.C., which R contends is the exclusive remedy
for a violation of sec. 6335(f), I.R.C.
Held: Ps’ citation of sec. 6335(f), I.R.C., on
reply brief did not raise a new issue but appealed to
the correct application of law. Held, further, Ps’
request to sell the stock complied with the
requirements of sec. 6335(f), I.R.C. Held, further,
the relief provided in Zapara I was not an award of
damages but specific relief to provide Ps the credit to
which they would have been entitled if R had complied
with Ps’ request to sell the stock. Held, further, by
failing to adhere to the statutory mandate of sec.
6335(f), I.R.C., R frustrated Ps’ ability to use the
stock to defray their tax liabilities and increased
their risk with respect to the stock; accordingly, R is
treated as assuming the risk of loss with respect to
the stock. United States v. Barlows, Inc., 767 F.2d
1098 (4th Cir. 1985), and United States v. Pittman, 449
F.2d 623 (7th Cir. 1971), followed; Stead v. United
States, 419 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2005), distinguished.
Held, further, sec. 7433, I.R.C., does not preclude the
specific relief provided in Zapara I.
Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara, pro sese.
Deborah A. Butler, for respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
THORNTON, Judge: Respondent has moved for reconsideration
of our prior Opinion in Zapara v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 223
(2005) (Zapara I). In Zapara I, we held, among other things,
that in this action pursuant to section 6330(d) to review
respondent’s jeopardy levy of certain stock accounts, petitioners
are entitled to a credit for the value of their seized stock as
of the date by which the stock should have been sold under
section 6335(f); i.e., 60 days after petitioners requested
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011