- 6 -
information to him to be able to sell stock to pay tax.
Apparently it may not have been worth much.”4
The Appeals officer’s Appeals Case Memo (undated, but
attached to Form 5402-c, Appeals Transmittal and Case Memo,
signed May 7, 2002) states in pertinent part:
The representative indicated in discussions with the
Appeals Officer that his goal in resolving the issue in
this case was to sell the stock seized by the IRS and
apply it to the deficiencies owed, in addition to
getting the audit assessments reduced on appeal in
District Court. He believed if this was done, the
amount owed would be resolved and possibly full paid
through the stock sale.
The request to sell the stock was made during
consideration of this case. The taxpayers believed
that the stock would become worthless while the Appeal
was pending, due to the downturn in the market. The
taxpayers wanted to liquidate the stock so that some
credit could be applied to the balance due IRS. The
taxpayers contended that while [sic] the Revenue
officer seized the stock, the value of the stock (if
liquidated) was greater than the balance of the
liabilities and that it had declined to the point where
the value is only a fraction of the balance due. The
representative was supposed to address this request in
writing to Appeals in order for consideration [sic] to
sell the stock. The Revenue Officer was in agreement
to the stock sale if it was sold at fair market value,
and all proceeds were applied to the deficiencies owed.
No request was received in writing from the
representative as requested.
On May 8, 2002, a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (the notice
of determination) was issued to petitioners. In the notice of
determination, the Appeals Office determined that petitioners
4 The record does not otherwise reveal the role of Revenue
Agent F. Stevens in this case.
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