this is united states versus twenty six the us code is the statue of limitations it was jurisdictional in this matter because the coast states flatly that  took place on one seventeen two of three in that shows up on the i r s records and pages ninety seven ninety eight figure in the two thousand and eight texas  there was never a proof of the installment agreement i would have no recollection of it i haven't seen it i don't recall signing it the statute requires that the secretary and the taxpayer both sign an installment agreement and it is not part of the record that i could ascertain in my review of the record that was transmitted to this court also i don't know whether it informs somebody that when they signed that agreement the the would be tolling or extending the statute of limitations and a review of i r s form nine four six eight in my mind shows that to night i believe it should have been   places to try and negotiate the amount of the tax and i don't i don't believe that a installment agreement was signed by me i don't know that for a have and that's what i would try to train show with respect that issue as i was going to say the two thousand and one texas had a cancellation date of ten six two thousand and three but it referred to good morning your honor is may it please the court paul the list from the united states department of justice will be half of the united states regarding the statute of limitations argument first the argument was clearly waived it was never presented in the trial court it was not played as an affirmative defense it was not raised in opposition to the government's motion for summary judgment and in fact both of the agents here stipulated to entry of judgment for the tax assessments against them if they had an argument as to the propriety of the assessments against them and they should not have stipulated to entry of judgment for those taxes having said all of that the statue of limitations did not run in this case because of the tolling that was brought about by the entrance of the installment agreement as indicated in the certificate of assessments and payments the forms forty three forty which were submitted in support of the government's motion for summary judgment are entitled to a presumption of correctness in the trial court as to the matter stated there in there was nothing presented to the trial court that would call into question the correctness of that these matters stated in even the statements made by counsel here today don't call into question those facts whether the taxpayer is able to recall entering into an installment agreement does not call into question the certified record that such an agreement had been entered into even the fact that an installment agreement was proposed would have extended the statue limitations during th period that the installment agreement was pending before the i r s and for thirty days after the installment agreement was either rejected by the service or it was turn unaided in this case then it's clear that the statute of statute of limitations was extended by at least thirty days and the complaint here was filed within thirty days after ten years of the assessments of the taxes so the statu of limitations argument simply is not germane and it's certainly not a reason to remain and for a trial on that matter when it was never presented to the district court in the first instance with respect to the argument regarding the order of sale of parcels a and b the real estate to which the federal tax liens have attached council here asserted that miss agent is and non liable spouse that is not correct tax assessments were made for federal income taxes against both mr and this is a thing for one nine hundred ninety eight and two thousand and one and again both of the agents stipulated to entry of judgment for those income tax liabilities for both years it is true that there were a number of employment tax liabilities also entered and assessed solely against mr hayden and those have also been reduced to judgment haydon is a liable party with respect to the federal income tax liabilities and for that reason resort to the rogers case this unnecessary rogers in the supreme court in rogers specifically stated that it could conceive of no circumstances in which the factors there and should be applied to protect the interests of the liable taxpayer so there's simply no reason to resort to to that case if the court has any questions i'd be happy to