- 5 -
On April 21, 2006, Lin sent to petitioners a letter
summarizing his work on petitioners’ income and expense table for
the purpose of calculating the RCP. At that time, based on the
information received from petitioners, the RCP was calculated to
be $81,456. Lin further informed petitioners that, unless he
received an amended OIC offering at least that amount, the OIC
would be rejected.
On May 4, 2006, petitioners sent to Lin a letter stating the
grounds for their objection to the inclusion of overtime pay in
calculating their future income for the purposes of determining
the RCP. The letter stated, in bold print, that “My firm has a
written policy that overtime is not permitted unless expressly
authorized in advance by a supervisor.” Petitioner enclosed a
copy of an Office Handbook issued May 2004 that supported
petitioner’s assertion. Petitioners asserted that, pursuant to
an enclosed economics publication, it is incorrect for
petitioner’s overtime pay to be included in their future income
calculations, because overtime may not continue in the future.
Further, petitioners provided more information related to
petitioner wife’s employment status and her student debt loan.
On May 19, 2006, Lin sent to petitioners a letter responding
to their objection to the inclusion of overtime pay in future
income. The letter stated that Lin appreciated petitioner’s
arguments in objecting to the inclusion of overtime pay in future
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007