explaining that standing under Section 2 7433 requires that plaintiff “be ‘such taxpayer’ from whom the IRS collected the tax,” 3 i.e., “the direct taxpayer, not a third party”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that standing under Section 2 7433 requires that plaintiff “be ‘such taxpayer’ from whom the IRS collected the tax,” 3 i.e., “the direct taxpayer, not a third party”
- adopting opinion of district court in Ferrel (“[w]e affirm for the reasons fully explicated in the district court’s excellent published opinion.... We adopt that opinion as our own.”)
- adopting district court opinion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
We have carefully reviewed the record and the district court’s decision. We affirm for
*1050
the reasons fully explicated in the district court’s excellent published
opinion
—Ferrel
v. Brown,
847 F.Supp. 1524 (W.D.Wash.1993). We adopt that opinion as our own.
Ferrel does raise one issue that was mentioned in her complaint but was not decided in the district court’s opinion. She asserts that the levy on her account violated 26 U.S.C. § 6331 (f) because it was uneconomical. However, that section has no relevance to this case because “§ 6331 ... does not ‘implicate the rights of third parties’....”
United States v. National Bank of Commerce,
472 U.S. 713, 731 , 105 S.Ct. 2919, 2930 , 86 L.Ed.2d 565 (1985) (citation omitted).
1
AFFIRMED.
1
. Appellant’s motion to strike appellees' submission under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) and appellees’ motion to file a response to appellant’s reply brief are denied.