sparse record reveals a thing of marriage is the fact that it involves something you know these mailing rules and mailing rules have to be used at times to solve certain problems here in this case the iris office of appeals and if you don't like the outcome there you can go to tax court where there's a procedure that is very similar to that you know when the i r s says if somebody owes additional taxes they're required to send out a notice of let the notice of deficiency and that has to be that there's a developed field of law that relates to the issue involved in this case never likes to this other field david would notice is a deficiency you know at times people don't receive certified mail and you know the i r s will typically reference the gnosis of deficiency send out something by certified mail and then if some somebody did politician tax court you know within ninety days you know the make an assessment against the party they sent the notice to and then they start collection activities because they don't have an address and now you know their people move there's changes of address you know there's often times you know the i r s can't come up with some of the proof about how they mail something to some notice of deficiency where the taxpayers didn't receive it and when they didn't receive it they filed a petition in tax tore now they the d c circuit made a decision in that case they said well you know the task or s started collecting activities against mr wright often he didn't receive any certified mail notices that happened so he went to taxpayer and he wanted a decision saying hey the reason why you know the i r s can proceed against me is because they didn't send me certified mail notices of levees he was without didn't file for how many years off the top and had a can't recall now that on the like it's in the early two thousand but it's quite a few you know we got an address on here the simple fact of the matter is it was at complete good morning may please the court randolph either for the commission or the texas court is a court of limited statutory jurisdiction and the court here correctly dismissed this case because mr adolf's and never received a notice of determination notice of determination which is usually issued after collection due process hearing is one of the tickets to the tax court and if the tax where payer has not received one tax court does not have jurisdiction here is case in this case mr adelson agrees that the tax court lecture is fiction but he argues that the court should have dismissed on the ground that the notice of intent to levy was never mailed to his last known address and therefore that notice was invalid in that situation a taxpayer's proper course of action is not to file a petition in the tax court because there's no statutory provision for the tax court to have jurisdiction in that situation but if we use as we've explained in our brief to file three for damages in collection activities so there are other remedies and the tax court in this case did not have the primary ticket that it needed to have jurisdiction that is correct that is correct the procedure provides for a taxpayer to file a claim asking for the release of a levy and the return of levied upon property and the regulations under that statute specifically speak to a situation where this final notice of intent to levy was not mailed to the taxpayer therefore sixty three forty three in the regulations under taxpayer if he says that he never got a notice to the final intent to living then he might not find out about things until his until whoever receives the notice of levy has received the notice of levy and possibly has paid over the funds so oh i think it could be the taxpayer finds out about it before anything's actually been turned over to the iris or it could be that something has been turned over already to the i r s it's not clear ok thank you and i'd also like to emphasize the befana oh really it's just one case and it's not a precedential opinion the tax court in this case did not have to follow it number one because the record in this case is not like the record before and before i know the tax court was able to make a clear finding that a notice of intent to levy was not sent to the last known address here in this case the record doesn't support that the tax court had no choice but to say i can't make that finding i'm going to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction also again the befana case is one case it's not precedential the tax court in this case was not beyond and determine correct you know the amount there is there an existing livy or money that's already been taken it's not in the record my understanding is the amount of that's already been taken that mr b kraft may have another amount in mind is only eight hundred dollars that's all i've heard about that was been has been received by the levy in this case do you know what the undue to the the notices of levy add up to about a quarter of a million dollars and that is a result of as you pointed out the taxpayer hasn't filed returns in over a decade probably and so to be frank he's not exactly helping the i r s know what his last known address is so that's another reason that the tax court correctly decided the case the way it did also the tax who didn't have jurisdiction even if it wanted to follow before it didn't have the jurisdiction to grant the taxpayer here the relief he requested he requested an injunction and refund of his money well even before the no doesn't allow that nothing allows the tax court to do that so in order for the taxpayer to get what he's asking for even if the tax court followed the funnel in this case and dismissed it on that ground mr adelson would still need to file those administrative claims with the i r s in order to get his money back because the tax court even in this case even under a funnel could not have had jurisdiction to grant him t relief he requested therefore what the tax who're did is correct because it's really the only relief it had before thank you so what are you very much is take a look at the quality of the evidence at the tax court lot of pond dismissed scapes if you took at evidence outside the record the account transcripts that haven't some a dress on and these were us certified documents that were commissioner's lawyer they were uncertified and then of course the lawyer was sitting there telling the court what the facts of the case you know this is my interpretation of these arcs and survive documents the error in this case is plain you know there was you know this was they were uncertified documents that is a violation of the rules and to maybe any lawyer that's got a couple of years under his belt dealing with you know dealing with government documents is going to know what this is plenty so we have in this case you know party can americans have all sorts of readies and can go to a wide variety of courts here in this case we had a pro se who went to tax court truth there's procedures like these other administrative procedures but nonetheless he went to tax court at a time  that there is another remedy that you can go to task or because of the established procedure stashed or procedure is that a notice of of levy must be shipped a certified mail that gives the taxpayer an opportunity to administrative leave proceed with the s office of appeals and then when you get a notice from the i r s office of appeal that's adverse that then becomes the basis for going to tax court and you know that we can sit here and say that there is no other established pleadings you know the appendix might have you know i don't know what i'll stop my head but you know they they obviously know where he lives you know they had a mate maybe they had an old address maybe they sent to the progress we don't know the quality of the evidence used to