Opinion ID: 1155514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: handley was properly denied his 1987 permanent fund dividend.

Text: DOR denied Handley's 1987 permanent fund dividend on two grounds: 1) Handley did not have valid signatures of two residency verifiers; and 2) Handley did not prove that at all times during his absence he maintained the intent to permanently reside in Alaska. The permanent fund dividend regulations require that [a]n applicant must indicate on the prescribed form information required by the department which will support the claim of residency. 15 AAC 23.675(a) (1988). The application required the signatures of two residency verifiers. [5] Handley did not supply authentic signatures or even the names of authentic residency verifiers. The regulations allow for the submission of additional information if the application is insufficient. 15 AAC 23.625(c) (1988). The applicant then has 60 days from being notified of its insufficiency to supply corrected information. 15 AAC 23.625(f)(1988). However, DOR held that an extension was not available whenever the information submitted in the original application was deceptive. DOR found that Handley's application was intentionally deceptive and thus rejected it without considering his corrected submission. We conclude that this ruling is reasonable and not arbitrary. Under these circumstances, the information included on or provided with the application was not merely insufficient; it was false information provided with the intention that DOR be deceived. The determination that Handley was trying to deceive DOR is supported by the record. [6] Relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept, namely the presence of the signatures, one printed and one written in cursive, exists to support the Revenue Hearing Examiner's and DOR's conclusions. Because we conclude that the first basis for rejection of Handley's application is supported in fact and in law, we need not analyze whether the alleged absence of intent to reside permanently in Alaska is also supportable. Further, a holding on the second ground would have no precedential value, because incarcerated felons are no longer eligible for the permanent fund dividend. AS 43.23.005(d) (amended in 1988).