the next and final argument this morning is an appeal number zero six thirty five zero five five federal national mortgage versus united states like to hear from you soon as you can be read is it not from coming in ceci deficiency relating to other issues other than perhaps the three reserved issues right well that's a complicated question strike because eight so you were you made a refund claim and a refund claim was allowed and i think one of your contentions is that that wasn't final because the government could have come back in so why isn't this issue this third issue also closed before nine hundred ninety eight because as i said we're not talking about the grocery from statute in fact there's a case directly on point with the hypothetical you just and then three months later as long as the statute of limitations so three months later decide that it's going to collect more kak well let me ask about that maybe i'm misunderstanding but looking at the same form eight seventy eight d and language on  fourteen page one fourteen of the appendix where it lists the reservations above that it says that this offer is accepted by the commission which nobody disputes it was the case shall not be reopened in the absence of fr issues are out there and they'll be resolved however there resolved the reservation of issue is to timely file claims for refunds solely on the grounds that and so you've limited what you can file a basis for a refund depending on how what the outcome is in these other proceedings isn't that part of what you agreed to with the i r s i mean in the absence of this language it would have been fair play to do anything this was part of the agreement with the maps and so this language the resurrection language there would be a concern it will let me just ask you can answer everything together so you don't think that the the there was no agreement to file a claim solely on the grounds that and then the details that are listed in those reservation paragraph that doesn't represent some agreement to you the only agreement reflected in the reservation is the iris agree that these claims would not be affected by the settlement and therefore the taxpayer reserved tax court ruled would bind everybody and provide the outcome that was then just a matter of a simple mathematical calculation i shall see where you can find that agreement in this document try to show the government the point where everything was resolved except the three issues to the three issues the condition didn't occur so there was no basis for a claim that left one issue the taxpayer on that one issue comes in and files a refund claim in the maximum amount that it could that's a laugh and your theory is that even though there's a two year statute of limitations with respect to the i r s getting back erroneous refunds that this would never cause refunds like i understand fast action is a different sort of thing it's it's a special statute that allows the i r s even after the statute of limitations for taxable years expired if they make a mistake let me assure refund they put the wrong number in there or something they have two years to go back and say that was a mistake not talking about returning the tax liability for the tax year that's covered by the regular statue of limitations for actually or the r s s three years i think it is after the filing of a return to determine the life tax liability for the taxpayer in this case that statute of limitations was indefinitely extended when the parties execute before age seventy two and it looks like that is what the question is and definitely extended there's a way for for the parties to terminate the extension and if they don't terminate it under the terms of the form then it remains in force now the government chose not to sign this form a seventy she teaches a simple thing to terminate it so they're forced to argue that it terminated under paragraph two of this form and i think the courts would look at the language there are some page want to level the appendix and it's very specific  mean is it is your argument mainly of revolving around the examples where the example they are examples of assessments that are not close to the examples i are relevant to this case but i think before we get to the examples there have to be at least two in addition to a perhaps i think that you agree that there's a final determination as to the route as to to the reserved issues and i'm not clear why there was no final determination as to the third reserve issue because the refund had been paid to that had been claimed by the pax pay here and the limitations period for the government challenging that was over why isn't that a final determination press the limitations period for the government challeng you again just like i mean there are cases on this site and i do want to emphasize the government's position here is very different from the position it always takes in these cases where requires very strict adherence to the for the stance what case is a case where the i the second thing that happened was the issuance of a refund check in response to fannie mae following its amended return that happens to be another one of the examples here tax reported on amended prefer terms and assessment that is not a fi government could have come back later with respect to the refund question and just you know well here is the question here for purposes of whether they can get the interest netting is whether the statute of limitations close with respect to the ninety three tax year and that would be the time from your claim for a refund which is six months after the time for susman expired so then you get to the question of whether the time for assessment expire and that dents on whether the four hundred seventy two a extension which was the indefinite extension they executed had terminated and that that form has two separate provisions first of all the parties can terminate with that form a seventy to eighty at any time in their negotiations or under paragraph two that harasses sign to work so that when the it but i still don't have an answer to my question which is harder we know what is there about the refund that makes it a final determination could the government not the government not have the ability to come back and question well i for assessment ended when the earth paid that refund claim because the parties had finally resolved everything in this letter in the one nine hundred eighty three year they seventy eighty laid out specific issues very specifically that those issues would be either the government or the taxpayer from raising issues with respect to the e three tax year except for the three reserve issues do you agree with that is correct ok and do you agree that is to two of the issues that is where the th word determine adversely to the pax player in the pac score that those two issues were over there was a reservation was no longer a factor because the conditions for their claim didn't happen right ok now we have the third reserved issue do resolved because i guess between ninety nine and the time of the refund claim those issues there were three issues out there ok and everybody agrees that the actual payment of the refund isn't a final determination right kno fannie mae could pursue refund claim and they agreed that the government will pay a good accordance with this other tax litigation that was going to govern the year and when the fannie mae plugged in the numbers and submitted that claim and the government accepted it and paid it the party gradually resolve all the issues whether you know what point to they get to the end of all the tax issues for that year and that's how how the courts have built that and i think here there's there's no basis for the iris to do anything more and there's there's not  ability to reopen and i think that both parties were around by this and would see i think the last piece of correspondence the refund crying came saying this is what we're entitle to and they are us didn't dispute it and paid it there was a final determination there open indefinitely so that the government or the taxpayer come back years later when you ask you a question about an argument that you haven't made and that is why i use it to talk about whether the statute of limitations was open for purposes of the special rule that we're talking about it's be open for some small issues and supposed to open general well i  so you're reading this the special will say it's open to the statue of limitations for that to tax year is open for any purpose no matter how limited it is and the conditions of the special rule or satisfied the special rule is only and consideration by the office of appeals has terminated the term action referred to informix seventy two and that box is not chair so we think that in the case this was not a final administrative appeals consideration which is a separate requirement other than the final and it could have been reopened for the reserve issues again on the reserve issues would continue in your view what is it the appeals judge could've done by way of reopening a reserve issue to do what really go shoot the whole thing and say well actually we're not going to be agreed to be valen by the outcome of the litigation from some of the year for the year one thousand nine hundred three never agreed to be found or anything with respect to the reserve issues and we just focus on the one reserve issue which we're trying to focus on which we fo those and i don't see how they could have contested well they were already agreed to be balanced by the outcome of the litigation the outcome of the litigation dictates the refund refund deal you apply for they have to pay it i roll past the court one more