- 25 -
Pittman in assigning the risk of loss to respondent with respect
to the seized property and in providing petitioners corresponding
equitable relief.
By contrast, in Stead v. United States, supra, the IRS did
nothing to assume the risk of loss with respect to the levied-
upon property. Unlike the instant case, Stead involved neither a
taxpayer’s request to sell levied-upon property nor the
application of section 6335(f). In Stead, the IRS had levied
upon a bank account controlled by the taxpayers. Subsequently,
the levied-upon funds disappeared from the bank account but were
neither returned to the taxpayers nor remitted to the IRS.
Petitioners paid their outstanding tax liability and filed a
claim for refund, arguing in essence that they had paid their
taxes twice. Affirming summary judgment for the Government, the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cited Zapara I with
apparent approval for the proposition that “Under most
circumstances, a tax is ‘paid’ when the Government becomes the
owner of the property”. Stead v. United States, 419 F.3d at
948.17 Citing Barlows and Pittman, the Court of Appeals
17 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not
otherwise address the analysis or holdings of Zapara I.
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