- 26 -
Claremore property, although he disputes that he is the sole
owner as respondent contends. Because of petitioner’s
concession, the hearing officer did not have to review Oklahoma
State law to decide whether petitioner owns the requisite
property interest to which the Federal tax lien in this case
attaches.
Second, a nominee NFTL is a collection device, and a
determination by respondent to use a nominee NFTL is governed by
Federal law, not by Oklahoma State law. See G.M. Leasing Corp.
v. United States, 429 U.S. at 350-351. Only the determination of
whether a taxpayer owns an interest in, or holds rights to,
property is governed by State law. Drye v. United States, supra
at 478; Aquilino v. United States, supra.
Third, even if the hearing officer was required to consider
Oklahoma State law, petitioner has failed to show that he was
prejudiced by any failure on the part of the hearing officer to
do so. Although the transcript of the hearing reflects that the
hearing officer did not research Oklahoma State law, the hearing
officer referred to the substance of intestacy laws of Oklahoma
in his discussions regarding the interest in the Claremore
property that petitioner admits he inherited by reason of his
mother’s death in 1989.
Fourth, Oklahoma State law recognizes the principle of
equitable or beneficial ownership on which the nominee lien is
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011