- 28 -
case since he was worried about not getting money under the levy
issued. Told him he could not do anything until we resolved cdp
[collection due process] case.” There is no indication, however,
that the group manager’s concern arose from any request by
petitioners to sell the stock; instead, this entry appears to
reflect an internal deliberation.
Another entry in the Appeals officer’s case activity record
indicates that on August 23, 2001, Mr. Mather sent a fax to the
Appeals officer “asking me for [a] letter to say okay to release
stock for sale.” The Appeals officer treated this request as a
request to sell the seized stock accounts. Although the request
is directed to the Appeals officer, rather than the revenue
officer group manager, it is clear from the case activity record
that the Appeals officer assumed effective authority over the
disposition of the seized stock accounts as early as March 20,
2001. Under the circumstances of this case, we treat the
August 23, 2001, fax from Mr. Mather as a request for sale of the
seized stock pursuant to section 6335(f).12
12 The parties did not stipulate the complete administrative
record or offer into evidence the Aug. 23, 2001, fax from Mr.
Mather. Consequently, we are unable to determine whether the fax
contained all the information specified in sec. 301.6335-
1(d)(2)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs., and whether it was signed by
petitioners or their duly authorized representative. Considering
the Appeals officer’s subsequent response, we believe that the
fax was sufficient for purposes of sec. 6335(f).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011