moving to amend their complaint at which point and i also believe this is unconfessed that amendment would have been futile as time barred at that point unless the amendments satisfy the relation  act so that's really what we're talking about here on this particular motion and cision which involves two rules the interaction of those two is throughout our briefing and throughout the u s trust actual things that were ruined as far as property of the states to have been effectively ties into what i was going to be arguing momentarily which is is there an obligation in a chapter seven case petition to go back and amend schedules to disclose petition earnings postposition expenses things like that once you get down the road you make a determination at the time of filing this is what the numbers are this is where things are the debtor disclosed an income amount on schedule i will debtors did one of the debtors was unemployed at the time the other one listed an income based on his face salary and at that moment multiple ways that the those numbers can be determined there are multiple numbers of months that can be used and a lot of that goes back to if there are multiple choices and from a trial court that turns on on more credibility and with the judge you believe the argument i'm trying to put forward your honor if that's how it's come across to him then i apologize that that has been construed that way what i'm trying to say is that in this situation we had to debtors after a colossal business failure who brought all of their prior information all of their prior pay stubs all of everything to their bankruptcy attorney and said this is where we're at the bankruptcy attorney that is uncontested is the one who filled in that number on schedule i initially and you know i recognize that that's a separate legal question that that i will touch on if there's time as well but i am suggesting that if there is a right at the time of filing only to a certain amount of money coming out and here that would be the base salary everything that is determined and called a bonus in this case is not the traditional bonus as used to the company did well we're going to throw out a bunch of money based on our performance  players this is about earned money for extra shifts that are picked up and were if they are avail that is the only thing that changes the number from the base amount on any given month and in this scenario we and again i'm trying to avoid the testimony aspects just because i know that the standard of review is very boring on those but the reality here is if there was no right  example i have no right as of the day he filed his bankruptcy petition to say i'm going to be able to continue working extra shifts i'm going to be able to do it because of family circumstances e he doesn't have the ability to do that his wife's leaving two wars and they have staffed up the department right before this his monthly averages have been trending down if he were to say it at that point and say here's what i expect to move forward with or something like that including a bunch of extra shifts but that he doesn't have a right to then he would be doing more than would be required of the chapter seven better and that is forecasting that as far as expenses go that even if there is an omission or a misstatement that it's got to detrimentally affect the administration of the estate for it's a matter and it's the language even as an also speaks to that as well and our positional argument with that is that if an overstatement of expenses for an understatement would not impact the bankruptcy estate or prejudice creditors that  leaders whenever they filled out schedule j they filled in the lines for all the household expenses they knew what was there but there were two big areas outside of that that ended up cost then money during the following year the one of which was medicare again eligibility all of these things that she's doing are costing money applying everywhere with each seat to be potentially able to practice their applying internationally traveling to try to find these jobs that's one and then the other is there is evidence in the record that over the course of that year they tried to result some of the business problems that they had had from the failed business using payments through their credit cards and that's really what we're talking here why was there a delayed and a complaint you know it was because the information was hard to come by from the vase you know there was there was delays i know she was out of the country there was there was other issues and in some of the statements as judge taylor mentioned you know they couldn't have been discovered her  and i think that that may have been a i don't know i didn't my question was that terrifying so go ahead twenty seven any false statement in connection with the case that doesn't mean in the st sixty days of the case when a complaint must be followed means any time here in the case so if if there's false statements made later in the case it  can't be that you can't amend you sort of add those to the complaint and i think that's what sort of animated the court's decision here did the bankruptcy court did struggle with particular amendments in just drug cases should be allowed because of the short timeframe and i think this case is a perfect example of that sort of idea  i'd like to move on to sort of the substance of the case where the false statements that were actually made the bankruptcy court found after a three day trial multiple false statements that weren't a denial just charge know hundreds of thousands more in the year two thousand seven hundred were not saying he should have he should have known that one hundred percent accurately that he had to predict it would be exactly six hundred and sixty thousand dollars or saying it is he knew it was going to be more than what he that all those sort of facts sort of suggest fraudulent ten here and then the further fact that they have amended and tried to continue with the false statements is another factor and showing little it's a little bit more inferential in the evidence of whether that was false and she knew it at the time but it's sort of the big banks the court did find heard her statement in the schedule was not false that she had zero income that wasn't the issue the issue was three hundred and forty one meeting she was going to have a job any time soon and she knew better than that and she didn't give all the information about her prior  in december she had interviewed with the placement and that she thought it would come through but her credentials and come through on time the fact that she had that interview and that was very close to getting a job there was not revealed and then at the same time of her three that she was close to and when she was asked at three hundred and forty one dollars meeting how much she expected through the end of the year with how much these jobs might pay she said she didn't know she didn't really expect to have a job to leave asked that way but that was the sort of overarching discussion at three hundred and forty one meeting with detailed questions about her job prospects she couldn't say how much one of these jobs might pay whether she would have a look and work just sounded like it make a finding on the tax return issue but it certainly is something you consider in the other issues in the overall how many misstatements and fraudulent all statements were in this case as far as weighing the inf because the point is we had we don't how you were really wanting to face this the things would have yes i mean the expenses the actual expenses were extravagant so if those were actually reported i mean you would say those are justified so you need to adjust your spending they were not through court so that would have changed how the analysis was done with respect you should this be converted right  o it is it's always a little bit of what we would have done had we known but that i think that's how you view materiality is it's not outrageous stuff pure speculation to think that we would have wanted to bring anything else i want to address unless you at all have any other questions that i get i apologize for the dollars and so obviously not your fault but it's something you're sometimes  colleague if you look at the tax return i would ask this panel to look through the testimony of john one related to what those initial discussions actually were those were his personal notes taken whenever they had initially started talking about w ultimately they would be filing a tax return or i would point out to the court as well that ultimately that tax return was turned over to the trustee and has been administered as a part of the estate so that's all i'll cover