- 18 -
6335(f). See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001).
We believe that the highly predictable outcome of such a remand
would only necessitate further judicial review at a later date.
Whether This Court Has Authority To Grant Petitioners Relief
In Zapara I, we held that because respondent neither
complied with petitioners’ request to sell the stock nor
determined and notified petitioners that selling the stock would
not be in the United States’ best interests, “petitioners are
entitled to a credit for the value of the stock accounts as of
the date by which the stocks should have been sold under section
6335(f); i.e., 60 days from August 23, 2001.” Zapara v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 242. Citing United States v. Barlows,
Inc., 53 Bankr. 986 (E.D. Va. 1984), affd. 767 F.2d 1098 (4th
Cir. 1985), we held that respondent could not claim any interest
or accrue penalties on this credited amount after such date. Id.
We noted that if the value of the stock presently exceeds its
value as of 60 days from such date, then respondent should sell
the stock and give petitioners appropriate credit. Id. n.15.
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent contends that
this Court lacked jurisdiction to order such relief,
characterizing it as an award of “damages”:
Petitioners’ request for a credit on their taxes
due to the delayed sale of the stock caused by
respondent’s alleged disregard of section 6335(f) is a
claim for damages. Pursuant to section 7433(a), the
United States District Court may only grant relief
because of respondent’s reckless, intentional, or
negligent disregard of the Internal Revenue Code or
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011