- 5 -
David Austen [phone number]”. On April 24, 2001, respondent
filed his answer, denying that he had erred.
By letter dated April 30, 2001, respondent’s Portland
Appeals Office notified petitioners that it had received
petitioners’ appeal request (which is not contained in the
record) and was transferring the case to respondent’s San
Francisco Appeals Office due to a staffing shortage. The letter
further indicated that, once the San Francisco Appeals Office had
assigned petitioners’ case to an Appeals officer, that Appeals
officer would contact them.
By letter dated June 4, 2001, Appeals Officer D.R. Eddings
of respondent’s San Francisco Appeals Office invited petitioners
to contact him to schedule a conference. Mr. Eddings also sent a
copy of his letter to Mr. Austen as petitioners’ authorized
representative. On June 27, 2001, Mr. Austen faxed a letter to
Mr. Eddings asking him to “review the documents, provided.”
However, Mr. Austen apparently failed to include the referenced
documents with his letter.6 On July 18, 2001, Mr. Austen sent
documents to Mr. Eddings with a letter identifying the enclosures
as “copies of documents sent to the audit section.” One of the
documents included with Mr. Austen’s July 18 letter (and attached
as an exhibit to respondent’s objection to the motion) is a copy
6 The identifying information generated by Mr. Austen’s fax
machine/software and printed at the top of the letter indicates
that the fax consisted of only two pages.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011