Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
         request (or, if later, the date specified by the owner for the               
         sale).  Sec. 301.6335-1(d)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                        
              Petitioners contend that their counsel requested respondent             
         to sell the stocks in the seized accounts.  On the basis of all              
         the evidence, we believe that such a request was made.  Indeed,              
         the Appeals officer’s case memo states:  “The request to sell the            
         stock was made during consideration of this case.”  The question             
         is when was the request made.  The evidence is skimpy.                       
              Petitioners rely upon a letter to Mr. Spirtos from Revenue              
         Officer F. Stevens, dated November 2, 2000.  This letter states:             
         “The funds under levy at Travis Morgan Securities, Inc. have not             
         been liquidated to date because of your request for a Collection             
         Due Process hearing, otherwise the funds would have been                     
         forwarded to the IRS within 45 days of the date the levy was                 
         served.”  On the basis of this letter, petitioners claim that                
         they must have made a request before November 2, 2000.  In the               
         absence of additional evidence, however, we cannot infer that                
         this statement was made in response to any request from                      
         petitioners to sell their stock.11                                           
              The Appeals officer’s case activity record contains this                
         entry, dated March 20, 2001:  “TC [telephone call] from manager              
         of RO [Revenue Officer] group-wanted to know if we had resolved              


               11 This letter appears to have been made in response to a              
          payment plan proposal from petitioners.                                     




Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011