Here are the sales tax cases from the TiNY Report for the week of September 6, 2024.
Decisions
Matter of Ahmed (August 15, 2024); Div’s Rep. Eric Gee, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Articles 28 and 29/Motion to vacate a default (Zoe Peppas).
Petitioner filed a petition at DTA in protest of two conciliation orders. Judge Chu-Fong sent a letter to the parties informing them of a scheduled hearing and that a prehearing conference call would be scheduled. Shortly after, a prehearing conference call was scheduled. At the prehearing conference call, Petitioner did not appear.
A second prehearing call was then scheduled. Prior to that next call, a notice of hearing was issued to Petitioner, who did not respond. Again, at the second prehearing call, Petitioner did not appear.
At the formal hearing, the Division appeared by its representative, and Petitioner did not appear. Nor did Petitioner submit a request for adjournment. Judge Chu-Fong issued a default determination against Petitioner, denying the petition.
Petitioner filed an application to vacate the default determination, alleging unexpected health issues (back pain) rendered him physically incapable of traveling to the hearing. Petitioner provided no medical documentation, nor any documentation addressing the merits of his case.
Judge Chu-Fong found Petitioner did not provide any reasonable cause for his default and denied his petition to vacate the default determination.
Petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, arguing his medical condition prevented him from attending, that the default determination should not be upheld, and requested the Tribunal to consider new documentation of his disability.
The Tribunal found that Judge Chu-Fong had properly rendered a default determination, as Petitioner did not appear nor request an adjournment. It then found Petitioner also did not provide a reasonable excuse for his default, and that Petitioner did not establish a meritorious case as he submitted to the Tribunal documents only related to his medical condition and not of his case. Petitioner’s exception was denied.
