- 16 -
that he needed to submit information regarding the
stock, such as the fair market value, in writing and
that a revenue officer would make a determination
regarding the sale of the stock. Petitioners did not
submit the required information regarding the fair
market value of the stock. [Emphasis added.]
As we discussed in Zapara I, neither section 6335(f) nor the
regulations thereunder require the owner to include
information about fair market value in a request to sell seized
property. Accordingly, it was an abuse of discretion for the
Appeals officer to insist on petitioners’ providing such
information before complying with the statutory mandate of
section 6335(f) to comply with the request to sell the seized
property.
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent argues that
petitioners failed to identify or describe the stock contained in
the seized stock accounts and so did not satisfy the requirements
of section 301.6335-1(d)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. As pertinent
to this line of argument, the regulations require a request for
sale of seized property to contain: “A description of the seized
property that is the subject of the request”. Sec. 301.6335-
1(d)(2)(ii)(B), Proced. & Admin. Regs. In the instant case, the
seized property was three stock accounts at Travis Morgan
Securities, Inc., as described in the notices of levy upon which
this case is based and which are part of the administrative
record. The notices of levy gave the Commissioner the rights to
all the property in the stock accounts and created a custodial
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011