Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          respondent in writing to sell the stock and apply the proceeds to           
          their outstanding tax liabilities.2  We remanded the case to the            
          Appeals Office for the purpose of establishing the value of the             
          stock accounts as of 60 days after August 23, 2001.3                        
                                     Background                                       
               We adopt the findings of facts in Zapara I.  For convenience           
          and clarity, we repeat here the facts necessary to understand the           
          discussion that follows, and we supplement the facts as                     
          appropriate.                                                                
               On June 1, 2000, respondent made a jeopardy levy with                  
          respect to certain nominee stock accounts held on petitioners’              
          behalf.  Respondent’s collection division took the position that            
          these stock accounts had a value of approximately $1 million--              
          more than enough to pay off fully petitioners’ then-outstanding             
          1993-98 tax liabilities of about $500,000.                                  
               By letter dated June 21, 2000, petitioners requested a                 
          section 6330 Appeals hearing with respect to the jeopardy levy.             
          During the pendency of their Appeals Office case, petitioners               
          became concerned about a possible decline in the value of their             
          levied-upon stock (the stock).  Petitioners’ then-representative,           


               2 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the           
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; all section references           
          are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in                 
          issue.                                                                      
               3 After receiving respondent’s motion for reconsideration,             
          we stayed our Order remanding this case to the Appeals Office.              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011