- 29 -
Under section 6335(f), after petitioners’ request,
respondent had 60 days to sell the stock accounts or to make a
determination that a sale would not be in the best interests of
the United States. Respondent did not sell the stock accounts
and made no such determination. Instead, the Appeals officer
took the position that petitioners first had to establish the
fair market value of the stocks in the accounts. Respondent
cites no authority for conditioning sale on submission of this
information. Neither section 6335(f) nor the regulation requires
the taxpayer to submit information regarding the fair market
value of the seized property.13 Instead, section 6335(f) is clear
that upon request, respondent must sell the seized property or
make a determination why a sale is not in the best interests of
the United States.
E. Did Section 6330(e)(1) Preclude Respondent From Selling
the Stock?
Respondent argues that under section 6330(e)(1), he was
precluded from taking any action to collect pursuant to the levy,
including selling the stock.
13 Cf. sec. 6343(a)(1) (authorizing the Commissioner to
release a levy under certain specified conditions, including
where the fair market value of the property exceeds the
taxpayer’s liability and release of the levy on a part of the
property could be made without hindering the collection of the
liability); sec. 301.6343-1(b)(5), Example, Proced. & Admin.
Regs. (providing for release of seized property where taxpayer
establishes that fair market value exceeds tax liability). There
is no indication that Mr. Mather’s Aug. 23, 2001, request was
treated as a request for release of levy.
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