versus united states for america before the court that arise out of just over ruling on two motions for summary judgment in the district court the is what how do you calculate the statutory damages hundred seventy four thirty one in terms  motion for summary brought by the government and the question was you need damages that are available under seventy four thirty one as to whether or not there much first  to discuss firstly the statutory damages if you i think it comes down primarily two to one point and that is if we look at the statute itself it provides a thousand dollars statutory damages for each act of disclosure the government contends that the plain language of the word each act or the in any manner whatsoever return or return information so the sixty one of those three is again raising her an authorized disclosure again the singular is used in revenue agents report sent to joint tax payers constituted to acts of this closure and this is our contention here that the same thing holds true in  know and we're talking there were referring to the subsequent dissemination or the second tier of dissemination that's what the ninth circuit ruled on in miller is that a second tier if this one is this once i'm in a room and i speak to one hundred people the other one is a radio and i speak the other radio to a million people how's that analytically different for purposes of this  in the case of a radio i would assume that if the person making the disclosure is aggressing the host the disclosure is to him that but  the rest of the time how about how about if i am the host how about if i'm just to choose a name rush limbaugh and i said and i say so and so has tax problems now is that one actor is that a million on the radio and i say ladies and gentlemen all the listening public i want you know that person x is cheated on his taxes i think that that would be stupid to the to the subject to how many people were listening and to address the problem i think the same thing would hold true here but the rationality could determine how many people are listening i think the statute is clear eno part b begins with with the with the phrase the sum of now and then it says the sum of actual damages and  punitive damages now the the congress of the congressional history on this just a statute discusses the fact that the reason for  the statutory damages was there was where you have an invasion of privacy by the disclosure of tax returns from h and as i understand the congressional history let's leave history there is actual damages but the congress has the almost impossible to prove they're there now and in this case this statute has some of the actual damages which could be zero as available depending on the interpretation of the statute this court refused to address that in miller because it found that there were no elements calling or or facts that provide for punitive damage s i think it's clear that if you if you say there are no community damages then that language that the congress used the sum of it's the purpose if this could have said actual damages plus if unity ok make your  one ninety two the government's liability cannot be extended beyond with the language requires the appellants have failed to address this point in their opening brief they failed to address it in the reply brief well i'm it's obvious they have waived their sovereign immunity we know that the only question  principle is same although there's some aspect of the federal tort claims act for example some courts have ruled that some of the exceptions to liability should be liberally construed although that if you have to leave is now before the supreme court in a case called two of the child so that remains to be resolved  the fundamental background principle your honor i think it's important for this statute because the structure of the statute if you look to seventy four thirty one section a creates a cause of action imposes liability in the united states subsection see that that language was plain and that it was in our favor but under the principle of sovereign immunity we believe even if it were ambiguous we would win under these principles because this is a recovery that is not permitted of the common law and so the issue for the court would be  to what extent has congress having by grace created this remedy that is recovery a windfall recovery for someone who can demonstrate and therefore has suffered no actual damages what sort of recovery would be allowed in the congress that said one thousand dollars for each the issue just records and tickler have made that conclusion but as i say even if it were a big us we believe the principles of sovereign immunity would mandate upholding the ruling of the district court the purpose of the statutory scheme scheme quite simply is to allow this nominal statutory recovery for a plank if the suffers no actual damages and as this court pointed out in miller and as the court has indicated through his questions it would be an absurd result if anything else were to eventuate because it would  for recovery if you compare this situation that situation in miller for example in miller some one hundred eighty one thousand listeners heard this detail tax information in this case one hundred people heard the fact that the plaintiffs were under criminal investigation we respectfully submit that would be an absurd result of the court would allow a greater recovery in the absence of actual damages but more fundamentally the on the public policy reasons your honor is the fundamental issue that under the principle sovereign immunity we cannot expand that remedy beyond what the congress has clearly required and they'll further questions on that issue your honor the seat of the second issue which is punitive damages once again the background rule being the principle of sovereign immunity in this case it's quite clear  court and that is in fact the majority rule the district court made that point in a footnote in her opinion and again the appellants and not rebutted that here on appeal indeed the supreme court ruled last year in state park versus campbell that the ratio of and that may push the argument a little too far you're not suggesting that congress could not provide printed in damages in the event of no actual are you know you are that's correct i'm suggesting congress could do it but not a constitutional prohibition against congress going that whether congress could do it but quite simply that the court should apply the general presumption that is firmly established in the law the congress intends the commonly accepted meaning of terms of art to be used in federal statutes which one might expect of the four circuit to do although this is a case involving the i r s that same general principle applies to taxpayers the innocent taxpayers are the people who will be paying this claim and that's the issue under the doctor's sovereign immunity that require importantly we respectfully submit your honor that if the court looks to the statutory scheme looks to the background principles of statutory construction the only correct result would be for the court to avoid creating if there are no actual damages and by their definition you're limited to to the one thousand dollar mystery damages only and certainly where the conduct it rises to the level of grossly negligent disclosures that there must be more available under the statute and i think a proper interpretation of it is that the government statutory damages and even if the government is correct on the number six times one act of disclosure the actress who agreed use according to their admission that we should be able to address