- 26 -
not believe petitioner’s declaration that in May 2003 petitioner
sent appropriate documentation to respondent.
Accordingly, respondent concludes, when respondent took a
position in the proceeding respondent’s position was
substantially justified based on what respondent knew at that
time.
In his opening legal memorandum petitioner states as
follows:
B. The position advanced by the Respondent was
substantially unjustified by the facts that
five children were dependants of Petitioner.
To deny the two EIC Deductions when five
children were involved Petitioner believes
was both unjustified, and based on red lining
the area in which Petitioner lives.
1. Respondent, Petitioner contends, was on
notice of the error when Petitioner called
Respondent’s service center on more than
one occasion.
2. Respondent, in documents already in front
of this Court, indicated a recommendation
for qualification of EIC as to Petitioner,
as of 11-19-03.
3. Petitioner also submitted an affidavit
claiming documents were supplied to Fresno
service center.
4. Only recently has Petitioner discovered an
audit, as to Fresno showing 75% of
reviewed cases of disallowed EIC credits
had documents in them supporting EIC
allowance. This same report< Exhibit P22,
showed Fresno service center as having the
highest error rate, with over 54% error
rate, compared to other service centers
processing EIC.
5. Petitioner has obtained a document,
supplied by Respondent, showing the word
Document on it, although mis-spelled, at
or near the time Petitioner claims
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011