- 19 -
regulations. Section 7433(a) is the exclusive remedy
for a taxpayer seeking damages against the United
States for such conduct.
Respondent is correct that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
award damages pursuant to section 7433. See Williams v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-94; Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-152. Respondent is incorrect, however, that we have
awarded damages to petitioners pursuant to section 7433. Rather,
we have provided petitioners specific relief. The distinction
between damages and specific relief has been explained thus:
“‘Damages are given to the plaintiff to substitute for a suffered
loss, whereas specific remedies are not substitute remedies at
all, but attempt to give the plaintiff the very thing to which he
was entitled.’” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 895 (1988)
(quoting Md. Dept. of Human Res. v. Dept. of Health and Human
Servs., 763 F.2d 1441, 1446 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). In Zapara I,
we did not award petitioners damages to substitute for any
suffered loss. In fact, we did not endeavor to ascertain whether
petitioners have suffered any loss. Instead, we ordered specific
relief that attempts to give petitioners the credit to which they
would have been entitled had respondent complied with their
request to sell the stock as required by section 6335(f).13
13 Our holding in Zapara I requires that if the value of the
stock is presently no greater than it was as of the last date it
should have been sold under sec. 6335(f), petitioners are
entitled to a credit against their tax liability for the value of
the stock as of that date; otherwise, respondent is to sell the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011