- 10 -
The record contains sufficient facts to permit us to decide this
case based on the application of section 6335(f). Particularly
in light of our conclusion that petitioners have not raised a new
issue, we conclude that additional evidentiary proceedings are
unnecessary.
Whether Petitioners Made Sufficient Request To Sell the Stock
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent argues that
the evidence does not support the finding in Zapara I that the
August 23, 2001, fax met the requirements of sec. 301.6335-
1(d)(2)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs. In Zapara I, we acknowledged
that because the parties did not stipulate the complete
administrative record or offer the August 23, 2001, fax into
evidence, “we are unable to determine whether the fax contained
all the information specified” in the applicable regulations.
Zapara v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 240 n.12. We concluded,
however: “Considering the Appeals officer’s subsequent response,
we believe that the fax was sufficient for purposes of sec.
6335(f).” Id. We reached this conclusion on the basis of all
the evidence in the administrative record that was presented to
the Court. That evidence convinces us (as discussed in greater
detail infra), that the Appeals officer treated the August 23,
2001, fax as a request to sell the stock; that she acquiesced in
the sale of the stock, subject to petitioners’ submitting
information about the stock’s fair market value--information that
we concluded is not required by the applicable section 6335(f)
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