Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          written request to sell the stock”.9  It is undisputed, however,            
          that petitioners did make a written request on August 23, 2001,             
          in the fax from Mr. Mather to the Appeals officer.  On the basis            
          of all the evidence, we have concluded that the fax constituted a           
          request to sell the stock, consistent with the manner in which              
          the Appeals officer treated it.10  Consequently, if we were to              

               9 This Court has held that in exercising judicial review               
          pursuant to sec. 6330(d), we review respondent’s determinations             
          de novo where the validity of the underlying tax liability is at            
          issue but otherwise review respondent’s determinations for abuse            
          of discretion.  See, e.g., Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604,              
          610 (2000).  At least one court has held that in a sec. 6330                
          collection case, procedural challenges, as opposed to challenges            
          to the correctness of the administrative determination, should be           
          reviewed de novo rather than for abuse of discretion.  Cox v.               
          United States, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1220 (W.D. Okla. 2004).  The           
          instant case presents a mix of a sec. 6335(f) procedural                    
          challenge and a correctness challenge as to underlying factual              
          matters.  The standard of review is further complicated by the              
          fact that the final determination does not expressly address                
          petitioners’ request to sell the stock.  Because we would                   
          conclude that respondent erred in failing to comply with                    
          petitioners’ request even under the more restrictive abuse of               
          discretion standard, we need not and do not decide whether a de             
          novo standard of review applies to the procedural challenge                 
          presented by this case.                                                     
               10 In a footnote to his legal memorandum in support of his             
          motion for reconsideration, respondent quibbles over whether the            
          fax represented an “express request by petitioners to sell the              
          stock”, postulating that it “can also be construed as a request             
          to release the levy on the stock or to release the stock back to            
          petitioners”.  The administrative record clearly shows, however,            
          that the Appeals officer treated the fax as a request by                    
          petitioners to sell the stock.  In fact, her first documented               
          action after receiving the fax was to call Mr. Mather “re sale of           
          stock that had been levied”.  Immediately thereafter, the Appeals           
          officer spoke to the revenue officer and other IRS personnel                
          about a possible sale of petitioners’ stock.  The following week,           
          she made a note in her case activity records that she would                 
          “continue to research/work with rep on possible sale of stock he            
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011