- 23 -
instead entered into an installment payment agreement with the
debtor. The third-party debtor made some payments pursuant to
this agreement but ultimately defaulted on it. The Commissioner
failed to take any further action to collect on the account
receivable or the installment payment agreement.
In United States v. Pittman, supra, the Commissioner served
notice of levy on a third-party nominee that held legal title to
the taxpayer’s real property. The nominee thereafter quitclaimed
this property to the Commissioner, who recorded the deed,
maintained insurance on the property, and rented the property.
These cases are factually distinguishable from the instant
case, and petitioners’ reliance upon them is misplaced.
Petitioners have failed to allege facts that would support a
finding that respondent exercised dominion and control over their
seized property. Petitioners have alleged no action by
respondent with respect to their stock accounts, other than
levying upon them. Petitioners’ lack of control over the
accounts and their inability to sell the stocks does not
establish conduct on respondent’s part analogous to the
Commissioner’s conduct in United States v. Barlow’s, Inc., supra,
or United States v. Pittman, supra. Cf. Murphy v. United States,
45 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 1995); Enos v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 284,
298 (2004). Petitioners have failed to show that respondent
exercised dominion and control over the stock accounts.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011