- 29 -
disinterested) such a violation apparently would be without
remedy, either in the form of damages or specific relief.20
The provisions currently found in sections 6335(f) and 7433
were enacted as part of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue
Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, 102 Stat. 3342. Both provisions
are included in a set of provisions known as the “Taxpayer Bill
of Rights” intended, as the name connotes, to “promote and
protect taxpayer rights”. S. Rept. 100-309, at 1 (1988). In
light of these broader purposes of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights
and the specific remedial nature of section 6335(f), we do not
believe that Congress intended section 7433 to displace equitable
remedies for violations of section 6335(f).21
In a footnote to his memorandum in support of his motion for
reconsideration, respondent suggests that he is not authorized to
credit petitioners’ account as contemplated in Zapara I. Citing
section 6402(a), respondent states that he “is not generally
20 Similarly, there are other gaps in the scheme of relief
under sec. 7433, insofar as it might provide a remedy for a
violation of sec. 6335(f). For instance, whereas sec. 6335(f)
entitles the “owner” of levied-upon property (who may or may not
be the same person as the taxpayer) to request sale of the
property, sec. 7433(a) limits a cause of action for damages to
the “taxpayer”. Furthermore, the damages available under sec.
7433 are capped at $100,000 for negligent disregard of law and
$1,000,000 for reckless or intentional disregard of law.
21 The legislative history of sec. 7433 gives the “Reasons
for change” in toto as follows: “The committee believes that
taxpayers should be provided a civil cause of action to
compensate them for damages that arise out of unlawful actions or
inaction of IRS employees that occur during the determination or
collection of Federal taxes.” S. Rept. 100-309, at 15-16 (1988).
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