potential avenues for judicial review in state court st a declaratory judgment action filed before the completion of the state administrative process and secondly an article seventy eight appeal taken in state court after the conclusion of the state administrative process neither of these remedies are actually available to m o p and tax payers under new york law st as to the declaratory judgment remedy a court itself admitted that there is tension if not conflict in new york law as to the availability of declaratory judgments for tax payers in reaching the conclusion that a declaratory judgment was available the determined that the procedure constituted a plain remedy under the t i a the declaratory judgment procedure in a fact at that time in new york allow the taxpayer to file an action in state court seek a preliminary injunction proceedings were sufficient yes your honor thank you for asking that question and much has changed since telly was decided forty five years ago in those forty five years the new york courts have substantially narrowed the availability of declar clearly held under the tax injunction act that uncertainty in we have veil ability of a state court remedy leaves open judicial federal judicial review and federal jurisdiction and this is from a case called rosewall that the u s supreme court decided and so this uncertainty about the avail ability of declaratory judgment in wire the fact that there are some cases saying it's available and others saying it's not available calls into inappropriate and i just missed it for that reason so this case is is indicative of the tension and confusion and conflict and i don't feel guilty of a plain remedy and state court in fact  decision is dicta and given that the court determined that the action should be dismissed and remey handed back through the tax administration process in addition to declaratory judgment remedies being unavailable the other identified by the district court are actually not available and new york rock has narrowed and become much more complex in the time since the supreme court decided to eat for these reasons the district court aired the tax injunction act actually inversions a role for the federal courts to play in reviewing these kinds of taxes and this case should be reversed and remanded to the district court for consideration of its merits thank you good morning may please the court caroline olson on behalf of the state of pallies and i'd also like to take an opportunity to also express my can to my can go insist to opposing counsel for their loss this court should affirm the district court's decision dismissing l b s claims for any one of three independent reasons st the district court lacked jurisdiction over the suit under the tax injunction act because new york state provide multiple remedies that are plain speedy and efficient and that provide constitutional claim in any event turning st to the tax injunction act near provides multiple avenues to challenge the constitutionality of a tax specifically the state allows declaratory judgment actions and an article seventy eight dollars action of killing from the administrative process to date and nobody has not even attempted to avail itself of these processes much less attempted and failed instead it is attempted to short circuit the state's judicial administrative process used to bring a challenge to a state tax in cases which is declaratory judgment relief is available in constitutional challenges as judged as judge chin recognize courts continue to entertain declaratory judgment action and as we were as we outlined in our brief and there's no real tension or uncertainty here the issue in the th action was that the court happened to decide in that case that a different parties claims were factually based and in fact were most likely just statutory claims  claims tacked on that is a reason why new york courts may say you must go to the administrative process but that is not an abrogation or a change to the they clear rule under which is that declaratory judgment actions are available but again the bigger problem here is that m l b hasn't even tried to go through federal court it attempted to short circuit the process which is exactly the opposite of what the tax injunction act is for it was there to it was that designed by congress and is meant to be read extraordinarily probably because of the potential these kinds of suits have to record havoc on the state's financial ministration and the case states have both the ability and expertise to fully adjudicate cost you should own challenges to state taxes not i'm not sure our argument drives directly from the supreme court's judgment in outcome aluminum where the court recognized that a parent corporation that fully controlled a subsidiary the parents interests were fully represented if this is the subsidiary could articulate all the same claims that the parent could and essentially the same point here which is that compete mr guppy she in litigating his claims would not need to post a bond to access the to access the article the description and actions which have been subject to sales tax or not in fact subject to the sales tax if he could demonstrate that on that argument d t f would not attempt to collect against and not be as a corporation how do you know of intend the tax on those are about it so audits that have not necessarily been committed to a final determination through the judicial process that would be distinct from what we would have here if mr capece she could go through and obtain a court order that said that these particular transactions were not subject to sales tax because they were in fact one hundred percent paid as gratuities to dancer's that that would have some prick that would have some produce of effects on d t s but either way and we say this in our brief this is a i can represent to you that g t f would not attempt to go after m l b if the basis of the conclusion in the article seventy eight dollars process is that these transactions were not subject to to the sales tax even aside that the case that i coming out of the th circuit and the basic and basic st principles about the way the tax injunction act work it really doesn't matter that mr copy she can pursue these actions because as the fact that a particular taxpayer cannot pre pay the tax or in this case post a bond is irrelevant to the adequacy and fairness of the state's procedures and that is a necessary because if what all you had to do to get into federal court was plead financial inability it would essentially create a gaping hole in the tax injunction act and one that not only is contrary to what congress congress express puppets it's also contrary to the history because at the time the tax injunction act was enacted about that that's correct your honor but basically i think basic principles under the taxing judge and how broadly it is construed as protective of the state financial systems compel the conclusion that that kind of a gaping hole an exception for financial inability simply would would go contrary to the purposes of the tax and junction act i want to talk briefly about the rightness claims as well most of these claims can alternatively be that's why i'm concerned about this man here from the room now a couple points your honor the st is that whatever expense that and i'll be may incur in litigation is not the kind of injury that this court has been concerned of in the past transcripts rather than enforce immediate subpoenas and so the idea that there needs to be some kind of ongoing litigation isn't the kind of direct harm that this court is looking for the while there could be additional litigation there are also efficiency concerns for this court and for the district court because if this court waits to render a decision until the end of the administrative process it me it could save the court the district court from having to issue a decision that may turn out to be unnecessary because m o p through the administrative process has successfully reduced or even a limited its liability because until it has x gone through that process it's tax liability is not finally determined and as we point to in our brief there there are examples in which tax payers have been able to reduce their liability we don't think that that is the right outcome but it we make knowledge that it's a possibility and until that contingency is removed it would essentially be asking this court to issue a judgment that it may never act may never have to weigh in on and given what we're dealing with here is a state tax in which the state courts have particular expertise it is particularly prudent for the court in this case to dismiss on these grounds i see that my time is up unless the court has any further questions i will rest on the brief with respect to arguments about the adequacy of their claims and ask them to  on that theory in a number of cases in the joint appendix to our graves are examples of the motions to dismiss filed by the tax department and state so it's taking a completely contradictory position based on the venue secondly actually availability of the article seventy eight dollars remedy your honor is correct that this court has not yet concluded rather that particular avenue of tuition review is available and satisfies the tax injunction th very very well so the right procedure at issue in that case was imposed a very small obstacle to the opportunity to initiate a post administrative decision appeal in contrast new york requires a taxpayer  room millions and millions of dollars just to obtain judicial review no tax injunction act in revisions a role for federal courts to play in ensuring that state taxation crew but it's a constitutional right it has reserved this opportunity for the federal courts to intervene when it states to not provide plain speedy and efficient remedies as new york fails to do it this case for this reason a district court decision dismissing him now his complaint was in the air