26 U.S.C. § 7433

Civil damages for certain unauthorized collection actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States. Except as provided in section 7432, such civil action shall be the exclusive remedy for recovering damages resulting from such actions.

(b) DamagesIn any action brought under subsection (a) or petition filed under subsection (e), upon a finding of liability on the part of the defendant, the defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff in an amount equal to the lesser of $1,000,000 ($100,000, in the case of negligence) or the sum of—(1) actual, direct economic damages sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the reckless or intentional or negligent actions of the officer or employee, and(2) the costs of the action.(c) Payment authority

Claims pursuant to this section shall be payable out of funds appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.

(d) Limitations(1) Requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted

A judgment for damages shall not be awarded under subsection (b) unless the court determines that the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies available to such plaintiff within the Internal Revenue Service.

(2) Mitigation of damages

The amount of damages awarded under subsection (b)(1) shall be reduced by the amount of such damages which could have reasonably been mitigated by the plaintiff.

(3) Period for bringing action

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action to enforce liability created under this section may be brought without regard to the amount in controversy and may be brought only within 2 years after the date the right of action accrues.

(e) Actions for violations of certain bankruptcy procedures(1) In general

If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service willfully violates any provision of section 362 (relating to automatic stay) or 524 (relating to effect of discharge) of title 11, United States Code (or any successor provision), or any regulation promulgated under such provision, such taxpayer may petition the bankruptcy court to recover damages against the United States.

(2) Remedy to be exclusive(A) In general

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), notwithstanding section 105 of such title 11, such petition shall be the exclusive remedy for recovering damages resulting from such actions.

(B) Certain other actions permittedSubparagraph (A) shall not apply to an action under section 362(h) of such title 11 for a violation of a stay provided by section 362 of such title; except that—(i) administrative and litigation costs in connection with such an action may only be awarded under section 7430; and(ii) administrative costs may be awarded only if incurred on or after the date that the bankruptcy petition is filed.(Added Pub. L. 100–647, title VI, § 6241(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3747; amended Pub. L. 104–168, title VIII, §§ 801(a), 802(a), July 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 1465; Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3102(a), (c), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 730.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7433 was renumbered 7437 of this title.

Amendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3102(a)(1)(A), inserted “, or by reason of negligence,” after “recklessly or intentionally”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3102(a)(1)(B)(i), (c)(2), in introductory provisions, inserted “or petition filed under subsection (e)” after “subsection (a)” and inserted “($100,000, in the case of negligence)” after “$1,000,000”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3102(a)(1)(B)(ii), inserted “or negligent” after “reckless or intentional”.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3102(a)(2), substituted “Requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted” for “Award for damages may be reduced if administrative remedies not exhausted” in heading and amended text of par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The amount of damages awarded under subsection (b) may be reduced if the court determines that the plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to such plaintiff within the Internal Revenue Service.”

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3102(c)(1), added subsec. (e).

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–168, § 801(a), substituted “$1,000,000” for “$100,000”.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 104–168, § 802(a), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows:

“(1) Requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted.—A judgment for damages shall not be awarded under subsection (b) unless the court determines that the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies available to such plaintiff within the Internal Revenue Service.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–206 applicable to actions of officers or employees of Internal Revenue Service after July 22, 1998, see section 3102(d) of Pub. L. 105–206, set out as a note under section 7426 of this title.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–168, title VIII, § 801(b), July 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 1465, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to actions by officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 30, 1996].”

Pub. L. 104–168, title VIII, § 802(b), July 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 1465, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall apply in the case of proceedings commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 30, 1996].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 624 cases (110 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Lindsey v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lindsey v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 21× “¶ 33, and an award of damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (2000), Compl. ¶ 32. The plaintiffs attempted to effect service on the defendant by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint via certified mail to the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of…”

Kovacs v. United States, 614 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 22× “§§ 105 (a) and 106 and 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . After the bankruptcy court ruled against the IRS on its statute of limitations argument again at summary judgment, the parties proceeded to trial.”

Ross v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 15× “Plaintiffs have invoked the damages cause of action in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (“TBOR”), 26 U.S.C. § 7433 , as the primary basis for relief, as other similar plaintiffs typically have done.”

Cherbanaeff v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 490 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 19× “2 In their complaint, the plaintiffs have asserted claims for wrongful levy, statutory interest, damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (2000), and violations of the takings and due process clauses of the Constitution.”

Said Hassen v. Gov't of the Virgin Islan, 861 F.3d 108 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “OPINION (June 26, 2017) Shwartz, Circuit Judge Said and Karen Hassen (“the Hassens”) appeal the District Court’s order dismissing their claim against the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (“USVI”) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (“BIR”) for imposing allegedly…”

Ramer v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 16× “Based on these alleged unlawful acts, the plaintiffs asks this Court to (1) direct the defendant to pay damages, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (2006), in an amount equal to the fine imposed by 26 U.”

Morrow v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 7× “Counts 19, 2k and 25 The United States also moves to dismiss counts 19, 24, and 25 under Rule 12(b)(1) because the allegations asserted in these claims “involve non-collection activities” and are therefore “not cognizant” under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . Def.’s Mem. at 3. These counts…”

Mercado Arocho v. United States, 455 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.P.R. 2006). · cites it 19× “Factual and Procedural Background On February 22, 2005, Israel Mercado Arocho filed the instant complaint against the United States of America (“United States”), under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . Plaintiff alleges that the United States has “seized” his bank checking account twice,…”

Goldberg v. United States, 881 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 7422 and claims for damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss.”

Zinda v. Johnson, 463 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 15× “§ 7422 and damages for unlawful collection activity pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . Because the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs must be construed liberally, e.”

Pollinger v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 11× “Plaintiff primarily seeks relief pursuant to the damages cause of action included in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, 26 U.S.C. § 7433 . See generally Compl. Plaintiff also invokes a variety of other statutory authorities in support of his claims for relief, including the…”

Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 7433 (a) ("such civil action shall be the exclusive remedy"); 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (e)(2)(A) ("petition shall be the exclusive remedy").”

Show all 624 citing cases →

— 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) — 4 cases

McNaughton v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 274 (Fed. Cl. 2014).

Goldberg v. United States (N.D. Ill. 2019).

Wright v. Brown (N.D. Fla. 2024).

Bowen v. United States (W.D.N.Y. 2025).

— 26 U.S.C. § 7433(e)(2)(A) — 2 cases

Kriss v. United States of Am. (IRS) (Bankr. D.N.H. 2019).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.