- 3 -
issues or offer his reasons for requesting the hearing, and
respondent elected to schedule a telephone conference instead of
a face-to-face hearing. Petitioner notified respondent that he
could not participate in the telephone conference and reiterated
his desire for a face-to-face hearing. On October 7, 2005,
respondent issued petitioner a notice of determination because
petitioner refused to cooperate with the Appeals officer. In the
notice, the Appeals officer determined that respondent had met
all legal and administrative requirements and that respondent
could proceed with the proposed collection actions.
In response to the notice of determination, petitioner
mailed a letter dated November 3, 2005, to the Court, which we
received on November 14, 2005, and filed as a timely but
imperfect petition. By order dated November 17, 2005, petitioner
was given until January 3, 2006, to file a proper amended
petition and pay the filing fee. No response to that order was
received, and on February 22, 2006, we dismissed this case for
lack of jurisdiction. On May 11, 2006, we received and filed
petitioner’s request for permission to file a motion to vacate
the order of dismissal, along with petitioner’s motion to vacate
the order of dismissal, a designation of place of trial, and an
amended petition. The motion to vacate the order of dismissal,
the designation of place of trial, and the amended petition were
lodged on May 11, 2006. On May 16, 2006, we granted petitioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008