act there's not a horrible lawsuit this court has recognized that distinction or other cases such as you street versus koskinen and we're asking the court to recognize your disease she was quite different from this case because  concerned that the plaintiffs who seeking to litigate was that their claim that the government was treating them differently and slowing down the process because of their views about the middle east there's nothing that the court would decide in that case it could affect their tax liability it only related to the timing of agreeing to the tax exemption whereas here  whether we're going to have to pay tax or not of the end of the government's tax assessment is based solely on the notion that we did not have a valid warehouse license for a valid alcohol purpose then we very well may face that assess they heed your client actually a completed tax return right won't this to pay the tanks instead directly related to each other well we don't agree that the that the permit automatically expires was told by a tax auditor we're going to deny you a business of doctrines for carrying on a business because you don't have your federally issued license to carry on that business display or that licenses lapse so that taxpayers violate the anti injunction act at all at the end of the day the federal tax gathering machinery operates as it is doing in this case and so point gulf maria will have an opportunity to defend itself and if one of the claims in that procedure is that you did not have a valid permit and we are able to vindicate that yes we did have a valid permit then we wouldn't pay x but we're not enjoying the give you advance notice of the charges which wasn't done here well that's true but here we don't have ramification are suspension at least it's not clear to me that we do what we have because at my understanding is that this was  seven if it's regulation what they're saying is that that being believed we were required to report a change in ownership now we contend there was no change in ownership one of the owners dire he shares went to his wife they were family members of an s corporation which the internal revenue code treats a single shareholder but where they came and said is no you were required to report and file a new permit application you didn't  under the a p s a before they could revoke our permit for not giving them the information under section five fifty eight city they were required to give us an opportunity to demonstrate compliance which means we go in and  regulation so any one point thirty five this is a hearing we've got to demonstrate compliance with the requirements now maybe we would have convinced them and maybe we would i don't know what the other part of five fifty three is just as  they have to give us the opportunity to achieve compliance so if when we have the seventy one point thirty five hearing they listen to arguments about why we weren't required to file a new permit application and sit back and say well we disagree well then the statute says we have the right to achieve compliance presumably by filing an application for a new person's house and complicated we need to get you where you want to be what why isn't this  just seems that they said it had it had been revoked it had expired and it had been automatically terminated so since there's no tax question right with his second alcohol side of it right to apply for a new one if it's turned opportunity for correction or compliance before things are bogus and i just understand why you fight a battle we may not need to fight in order i mean you may well have a right in fact i'm going to ask the governor this does seem to me that  you did have a right under the a p a in district court with respect to hear the alcohol permit because you were told by the agency that it had expired the provision to this court doesn't apply so it looks to me regulatory mechanism section seventy one point thirty five of their regulation when they come forward to us and say you know we think it was revoked well then if they said we're going to revoke your license they have to give us notice of the seventy one thirty five hearing and that's what we're thanks here from government that the permit scheme and the tax lien are intertwined and what you have here is situation where discarding the question was there an automatic terminations or was there a revocation which is ar if that's how the different ways that you can have a permit not be operative anymore one of which is on a matic terminations another which is a suspension replications withdrawal or no man's it then provides a judicial twenty one and forty two to forty three conceded that under principles of race judicata if in a refund suit they won the point that there was no automatic terminations that would be binding on on an agency including for been done normally so you've had a change in ownership this wasn't normal it was not normal because the normal thing if you want to maintain your permit and you i'm sorry i was when i asked about no no i thought i was referring to what the agency  it would have if it had replied it would have been there would have been two different possible routes depending on what the agency dead ok the first row with then the new permit was was granted and they could argue to the first one then that would mean that going forward they have this permit they can legally purchase and import alcohol for for everything which we think would resolve the issue period because there's no tax consequences to happen right now if it was  then they would have the right to petition this court on a timely basis for repeal of the denial of the alcohol to say that's the structure that the statute sets out and that's the structure presumed that a permit holder is going to try to use because under the automatic terminations the way that you prevention automatic terminations is the file or issue for new that the only reason why this is even a question is because you have somebody tried to evade th asked for process by not buying a new permit and it's clear that there is a process that out by the statute if there's a change in ownership which we submit that there was honor what they're going to say is if i say ok you know i'm going to get a new alcohol permit in twenty seventeen days if you will permit a permit starting in twenty seven ok right they're going to go back though and they're going to say but you didn't have a permit from twenty thirteen to twenty seventeen first of all you told me there would be tax liability and then you just said there wouldn't be well he didn't explain the i need to understand very clearly if if you if you really apply and don't get hit i suppose the fact that they failed to alert the bureau was not what happened here yes that but that could be i suppose deemed relevant by the agency but that would be up to the agency to decide if that's relevant i certainly think it put them on notice with operating climate next you guess what i would say is a couple things first of all i don't know of any agency actions being taken presently to go after gulf coast but the question