Anthony D. Long - Page 3

                                        - 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