-9-
Petitioner’s failure to submit a substantially completed
application in conformance with respondent’s regulatory
prescriptions precluded a determination with regard to its
qualification for exempt status. Respondent’s abiding requests
for additional information, particularly the April 19, 2002,
letter, September 27, 2002, letter, and the disputed letter, were
sufficiently timely. Petitioner’s dilatory responses in
accommodating respondent’s requests constituted a failure to
proceed with due diligence. Petitioner responded to the April
19, 2002, letter on June 18, 2002, only after an exhortative
notice from respondent was sent on May 31, 2002. Petitioner’s
belated response to the September 27, 2002, letter, on December
18, 2002, occurred well after the lapse of respondent’s imposed
and extended deadline for maintaining the application under
active consideration of November 28, 2002. Finally, petitioner’s
deferment in responding to the disputed letter for more than 18
months caused its application to languish and occasioned
respondent’s decision to ultimately cease consideration of the
matter.
Petitioner contends that it complied with all requests for
additional information, and that respondent discontinued the
correspondence following petitioner’s submission of requested
information on December 18, 2002. Inherent in the August 31,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011