- 26 -
acknowledged that the risk of loss might pass to the Government
if it exerted dominion and control over the levied property.18
Id. Because the Government had taken no action with respect to
the taxpayers’ bank account aside from levying upon the funds
within it, however, the Court of Appeals held that the risk of
loss did not pass to the Government. Id. at 949.
In confirming that the risk of loss might pass to the
Government as a consequence of its exercising dominion and
control over seized property, the Court of Appeals in Stead did
not foreclose the possibility that the risk of loss might pass to
the Government for other reasons. To the contrary, in dicta, the
Court of Appeals suggested that the risk of loss might have
passed to the Government if the taxpayers had shown that the
18 The Court of Appeals stated:
There are situations in which the government
exerts such extensive dominion and control over a
levied property that it should bear the risk of any
loss. See, e.g., United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d
623, 628 (7th Cir. 1971)* * *; United States v.
Barlows, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098, 1100 * * * . A levy,
without more, is not sufficient to transfer the risk of
loss to the government. Unless the government takes
affirmative action to administer the levied upon
property as it did in Pittman and Barlows, Inc., a tax
levy does not in and of itself equate to payment of tax
liability. * * * [Stead v. United States, 419 F.3d
944, 948-949 (9th Cir. 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