original transfer in two thousand and three that mr baker made of the planet fitness proceeds to the baker trust was approaching one transfer she also now readily agree that the bigger trust for which she was the trustee was a sham trust and she agrees that mr baker had a great tour property to the i am a bankruptcy payments which led to the escrow funds for purposes of the federal tax lien and the funds were legally is from two thousand and two for but it appears that the court viewed that decision through the lens of the bakers divorce the district courts an adequate explanation has a substantive effect and that massachusetts law is absent from the division of the escrowed bonds there's no mention of the fourteen factors required under massachusetts law and there's no discretion of either discretionary factor of the parties discussed extensively in the district court namely mr baker's generation of responsibility for the escrow funds on to discuss every one of the fourteen factors in section thirty four and in addition to discussing those factors to explain the rationale for the ultimate division of the assets in any word of alimony  government actually has a rose the following year in two thousand and nine so the government contended it that mistake or is not entitled to the funds due to the various activities that she engaged in regarding the transfer of assets in this case court approach to this requiring discussion of those factors and requiring a rationale for the ultimate division of the assets is a place to go approach it would be very difficult if not impossible for  there's no other way to understand what he was saying that there was air to even look at it that way i just don't understand why you're arguing that we should we should be going then i mean if the government's position is she wasn't entitled lead tracing issue if i may the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the government's only increase in clay in the district court found that mr baker made it the majority of the mortgage payments and also because of that he had regular we made monthly payments  sixty two hundred dollars but they never says the money in this case is of course evidence must be going to testify that mr baker was the source of the mortgage payments and that she always physically paid the mortgage both of them confirmed the amount testimony government was not required to produce documentary evidence to support their testimony and indeed a human evidence would have been hard to come by given that very often these transfers from mr baker to miss baker to pay the mortgage were don thank you your honor i shall make men representing defendant robin baker your honour's i would also like to attempt to analyze this case in terms of the two assets at issue which is the amount and amount of money about six hundred thousand held in escrow which the government is now holding that money arose or was eventually recovered from the sale of taxpayer scott baker's company which he started and sold while he was married to my client a opportunity to prove the individual claims against her and therefore was not exposed to a personal judgment against herself when they dismissed that claim miss baker's participation in that case was essentially equivalent to one west bank especially if they were just going after assets they were they dropped the claim against miss baker personal way and his papers involvement in the case was simply as a person who owned an interest in an asset that the government was claiming its tax liens attached to ultimately from scott baker's start and sale of his company during their marriage the government's reliance on the transfers into the scott baker trust for the individual initial investment into the sun bos transaction   at the time there was no money that came from that the the bakers had placed the sale proceeds from the business in an offshore trust didn't report all the income to the government when they discovered and realized that some abbas transaction was not allowable they entered into the global settlement program scott baker entered into the global settlement program one of the requirements of which was to pay the tax due it was after that point discovered that the offshore investment was a ponzi scheme and all the money  stone he was on able to pay the government because he didn't have the phones in the bay had made a claim in the bankruptcy too because it was a bankruptcy that went after the hedge fund because many people were defrauded eventually there was a recovery that's the money that eventually is now being he necessary factors to render an equitable decision or simply not accurate if furthermore the government's argument that just parents needed to set forth a decision which exactly mirrored working would have had he been deciding a massachusetts yes it miss baker has rights as she's a divorced woman and she has property rights in the marital property under massachusetts law which provides for an equitable property division and in this case judge karen simply found that the property division in the settlement assets property properly entitled to because she does not owe the government any taxes ok the government pursued her in the tax court case and made allegations against her but as we stand here today robin baker does not owe the government any taxes she was argument is now moved because the government by the discharge of the tax lien against the house the proceeds that resulted from it half of them have already been paid over to the government but the other half were not held in escrow they were they were distributed to my client robin baker as you can imagine is except for the fact that they dismissed their claim of purchase conversion against her personally again stated that she's only in the action as a person feigning interest in the assets that are subject to the tax  out by taking the money out of the funds have an escrow that's a kind of personal liability that's not me tracing to a specific as i said and that's the claim that the government specifically dismissed before trial so that they wouldn't have a jury and my client would need an opportunity to explain t they're picking and choosing what they want to sensually there's the amounts that were paid from scott to robyn were never well documented there's no further evidence that brought them then she took that money actually used it proceeds of that in the property not not to the funds that's not the claim here but rather that the tax liens on the hingham property attached to the proceeds from the sale of that property  thousand dollars which well encompasses the proceeds here so that you know we would look to those calculations to show that it's practical matter because the property has now been sold and we know the amount of the and the same little bit of personal property was also a balance in the separation agreement and that hasn't been altered by the court have any further