- 24 -
of respondent’s failure to comply with section 6335(f) are
sufficiently similar to the consequences of the Government’s
wrongful actions in Barlows and Pittman as to demand an
equivalent remedy, for reasons explained in more detail below.
As previously noted, the very object of section 6335(f) is
to provide a remedy when the taxpayer believes the IRS is taking
too long to publish notice of sale. Anderson v. United States,
44 F.3d at 800. By failing to comply with the mandate of section
6335(f), respondent thwarted petitioners’ statutory remedy.
Respondent’s wrongful action was, in its consequences to
petitioners, tantamount to respondent’s exercising dominion and
control while failing to adhere to section 6335(b), as in Barlows
and Pittman. As in Barlows and Pittman, respondent’s wrongful
action frustrated petitioners’ ability to use the levied-upon
property to defray their tax liabilities and increased
petitioners’ risk with respect to the levied-upon property. In
these circumstances, we do not believe it is dispositive whether
respondent’s wrongful action might be said to have constituted
the exercise of dominion and control.16 Here, as in Barlows and
Pittman, any loss resulting from respondent’s wrongful action is
not attributable to petitioners and should, we believe, be
assumed by respondent. Accordingly, we have followed Barlows and
16 In Zapara I, we concluded that the record did not
establish that respondent had exercised dominion and control over
petitioners’ seized stocks. Zapara v. Commissioner, 124 T.C.
223, 237 (2005).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011