- 28 -
process hearing”. Specifically, petitioner states on brief that
“after petitioner requested his 1999 case be returned to New
Jersey, from Oklahoma City OK.[sic], the record is blank and
respondents [sic] did not address that case; there was no due
process hearing concerning that case and it cannot be included in
Notice of determination as after thought [sic].”
As previously indicated, the record for 1985 reveals that a
conference concededly pertaining to petitioner’s 1985 year was
held on June 26, 2002, and that petitioner’s representative
understood, and communicated to petitioner, that the outcome of
the meeting could lead to closure of the collection case and
resumption of collection activity. Concerning 1999, in contrast,
the record is essentially silent from the time of petitioner’s
February 7, 2002, request for transfer to New Jersey until the
issuance of the notice of determination addressing both 1985 and
1999 on September 27, 2002.
The notice of determination supports that the 1999 case was
at some point assigned to Ms. Carter, but there is no indication
as to when the assignment occurred or whether the assignment was
ever communicated to petitioner or his representative. None of
the interim letters reference 1999 or the contentions raised by
petitioner in his Form 12153 for that year. Rather, the only
explicit mention of 1999 is on the power of attorney submitted by
Mr. Lynch on April 22, 2002, which authorized his representation
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011