Opinion ID: 2461318
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Harrods' PFD applications for 2002 and 2003 were denied.

Text: The Harrods' 2001 PFD applications were denied because they had been absent from Alaska for more than five years. The Harrods pursued an informal appeal of that decision, supplying evidence of the paper ties they had with Alaska such as maintaining a bank account and voter registration status here, and holding Alaska fishing and driver's licenses. Ian argued that unavoidable circumstances had prevented the Harrods from returning to Alaska for at least 30 days in the previous five years, [29] and he was successful in convincing a DOR hearing officer that they intended to return to Alaska and remain here indefinitely. The hearing officer awarded six PFDs to the Harrod family for the year 2001. In this appeal, the Harrods argue that the same evidence they relied upon to overcome the rebuttable presumption in 2001 must also be sufficient to overcome the presumption for 2005. We disagree; the ALJ's decision to affirm the denial of the Harrods' 2005 applications did not rely on findings regarding the sufficiency of the Harrods' paper ties to Alaska. Instead, the ALJ decided the Harrods were not eligible for 2005 dividends because they were determined to lack residency status in 2002 and 2003, they did not appeal those decisions, and they did not reestablish residency in subsequent years. [30] The Harrods' 2002 and 2003 PFD applications were denied due to the rebuttable presumption found in 15 AAC 23.163(f). The Harrods pursued an informal appeal for 2002, but DOR denied it. DOR's written notice of denial included notification that the Harrods had 30 days to file a Request for Formal Hearing appeal. A form for requesting such a hearing was enclosed with the DOR's written decision. It gave notice that the Harrods had 30 days to request further review, [31] but the Harrods did not respond. [32] The 2002 denial became a final decision 30 days later. [33]