- 17 -
relationship between the IRS and Travis Morgan Securities, Inc.,
such that the stock came into the constructive possession of the
Government. See United States v. Natl. Bank of Commerce, 472
U.S. 713, 720 (1985).12 Accordingly, we do not believe that
respondent lacked the ability to know the identity of the stocks
in the levied-upon stock accounts as necessary to comply with
petitioners’ request to sell the stock. More to the point, the
administrative record does not suggest that the Appeals officer
was ever in doubt as to the identity of the seized property that
was the subject of petitioners’ request, that the Appeals officer
ever expressly requested further information in this regard
(other than as might be incidental to her request for fair market
value information), or that any failure by petitioners to provide
such information was the reason for respondent’s failure to
comply with petitioners’ request to sell the stock.
In his memorandum in support of his motion for
reconsideration, respondent contends that we should remand this
case to the Appeals officer “for a determination as to whether
petitioners’ request that respondent sell the stock was
sufficient” under the section 6335(f) regulations. In light of
the foregoing discussion, we do not believe it is necessary,
productive, or appropriate to remand this case to the Appeals
officer to reconsider, in hindsight, her compliance with section
12 In their stipulations of fact, the parties have described
the stock as being “in the possession of a Revenue Officer”.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011