# Devona Ferrel v. Ann Brown, Seattle District Director of Internal Revenue Timothy A. Towns, Chief, Collection Branch

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 25, 1994 · 40 F.3d 1049

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/682796

## Case

- **Full name:** Devona FERREL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann BROWN, Seattle District Director of Internal Revenue; Timothy A. Towns, Chief, Collection Branch, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 25, 1994
- **Citations:** 40 F.3d 1049; 94 Daily Journal DAR 16632; 74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7036; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8920; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33276; 1994 WL 661616
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Beezer, Fernandez, Orrick, Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/682796

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/682796. Public record. Not legal advice.