Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara - Page 2

                                        - 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