put you back is entitled to interest on the undisputed overpayments of tax for that year right now the statute that governs whether or not  is whether sufficient information is provided from it math mathematical verification tax liability and on the forms of the tax reform it says include statute statute says are in lieu mathematical verification of the tax liability shown in return so we're not talking about mathematical verification of every line on the return we're not talking about the mathematical return of one it's not a component of the math shown on the return to it's not a none of those forms individually meets the number that shown return just the return itself has multiple wafts write a lot of items go into the lines that dispatch it doesn't require to to to provide everything that went into the number in the line what we're talking about is mathematically verify the bottom line numbers on the return sixty a lesson they can define what a return is but that's not what congress did in sixty six eleven chief take it if congress had wanted to say let's go let's use the definition of return that appears every place else in the cult then we wouldn't have sixty six eleven chase we sixty six eleven says you're getting interest on your overpaid sixty six eleven b says hey you know what we're going to penalize people who file their returns late by denying them interest until the return is filed but sixty six eleven gee that says but a return isn't the return that we're talking about in sixty allowed all right knowing that all of the case law that was out there all the litigation about what constitutes some return for purposes of the internal revenue code so what is your position that we turn to specific levy define language is very specific to be through a test right well that's not the language that's sufficient required information whether on the return or the required attachments to permit the mathematical verification of the tax liability as shown on the return so i parse each word sufficient congress chose sufficient all required information didn't they didn't choose the word they could have sent or required for years or required attachments that's not what they chose that sufficient required information whether on the return or an attachment to permit the mathematical verification if you look at the lines on the return you can take those lines on the return and verify mathematically the important item on the return which is the tax liability of the tax payer at a hundred and five million dollars and so mathematically you can verify with the information that is on the return all of the required what is required by the statute and we're not talking about ordering and when we're talking about verification we're not talking about looking behind the courts below in their doesn't verify the number on the return it's it's proof and it's limited proof that these amounts were pains i mean this is information that we received from third parties or the kind of receipts for the withholding tax there were taxes that were withheld from our income that will given to us by third parties the third parties filed the returns with the internal revenue service so the service knows what our payments were they have the planes the returns in the to all of our pains if you have in the aggregate it's just predicated on argument which i think you understand that you may which is as long as the stuff is somewhere in the iraqi buildings that that sufficient to establish that they have it and therefore it's their responsibility to go elsewhere to get that information what they do match it i mean that it's not a question that somewhere in the building  right well first interest is paid on over things over payments exists on the date the returns fall so the fact of the over pain is not in dispute the fact that the interest on the overpayment would have started on the due date of the return is not in dispute what b and sixty six eleven says is you're not going to get your overpayment interest unless you file a return on the that that this different interpretations of what is a return they put a specific requirements of the return for process ability we're not talking about determining the merits of the item file the return and it would have been a process of a return without the payments because we would still have one hundred five million dollars tax liability that had to be filed on the return right so the the congress chose those works congress didn't use incentives in sixty six eleven they used the word overpayment twenty one times but in sixty six eleven g they used the words mathematical verification of the tax liability gas i mean if you remember what you had in colombia gas you had been eleven twenties and you had the eleven thirty knots then there was a net operating loss and then there was another eleven thirty nine so the number on the return was then reduced by the number on the eleven thirty nine then the number on the next return was reduced by the end oh well then the number was reduced by the next eleven thirty not so when you were talking about the tax liability and the return and the permitted patch which you're i mean required forms every plane which you're required to form that would do since the tax liability when your opinion in columbia gas doesn't talk about verifying the overpayment building the case under the plain language of the statute is about what deutsche bank's return contained when deutsche bank and you made it i'm sorry i'm sure but can you just respond to the final point your friend was making about the relevance of the fact that in t to be to the use of the word in spirit the case of tax liability and to see separate distinct from overpaying to do kind of explain to us whether the government thinks there's a relevant distinction between the two terms and if so why it matters not here because section sixty six eleven pertains entirely to interest over payments so i understand their argument to be that the only relevant line is line five which is total pact you don't look at payments as a pulmonary matter that's a new argument on appeal it is not present in the court of federal claims that should not be considered here as we explained in our brief but you know secondarily that just doesn't make any sense in the context of a statute that pertains only to interest on overpayments and when you look at the senate report on that it backs it up says you know no interest runs until the s can determine that such overpayment exists and they obviously can't determine that an overpayment exists unless they look at the payment so i think tax liability in this context it can be either one side well i think technically kept exactly against you not in your favor what congress wanted the i r s to be able to mathematically verify with the tax liability either positive or negative they wanted us to be able to see only one side in this statute right this this section because as you say it's ok to refund right although i suppose the iris could look at the include overpaid yes i think it is i mean i think the other thing is that what you make a trying to use to say that it's not are really terms of law or where you know we're looking at the tax court sufficiency jurisdiction and something like that which really has nothing to do with this so yeah i think tax liabilities generic enough that it can be either positive or negative so why was the information on the forms necessary to support the mathematical theory of occasions because as this court explained in columbia gas the i r s needs to be able to recalculate and corroborate the information on the return it's not just can we add up the numbers on the faces of returning from t the tax liability shown so that's why they're important and i think you know there's no dispute really the same required i mean i think it's pretty clear on the face of the forms themselves and on the instructions on the faces to  the forms they use you do read the statutes have a second requirement is that you have to show that these were necessary for verification well here they were and i what you're asking i think is that if there were see a radically are required for that were not necessary to verify the tax liability what's our position and i think i agree with you it's really it's all required forms that factor into the calculation of the tax liability which these do i think see radically maybe there could be a form where or had to list their shareholders or you know something like that and maybe that's required and maybe they didn't submit it and i don't know whether if that's not necessary if it doesn't go into the calculation of the tax liabilities and maybe the return still profitable but here the issue is that without the required forms we couldn't mathematically verify the tax liability showing on the  and there has to be sufficient underlying data for us to verify the tax liability shown so that's exactly what these forms are for they enable us to recalculate and corroborate this lump song number that's on the face of the return of the trust says you know here's  total amount of withholding and in fact what your bank's own actions show that the forms are necessary to recalculate and corroborate the number because it was only after we sent the return back and we said you need to file eighty eight o five and ten forty two as the i don't think so because i mean i suppose these forms also showed the amount of income you know there was like the eighty eight zero five showed the amount affectively can if you don't because if you get those forms have nothing to do with calculating the total tax write well i'm thinking about this i think that to the extent that the eighty eight o five says this is your effectively connected in com that does go into the income number which goes into the told tax you know i hadn't thought about it quite that way but i don't think that means that we lose but i think i mean really congress couldn't have meant that you only look at the total tax when they're talking about whether a given interest whether to pay interest on an overpayment i mean they would basically it just it just doesn't make sense in the trying to what they're talking about is not tax liability it's just total tax before you consider any payments that's the problem with their argument is that they're saying that even though this whole statute is about when you start paying interest on over i'm not sure that that matters i mean technically maybe a schedule is part of a return attachment is an attachment through return rather than the return itself but you know what the court or federal claims said it really doesn't matter right you know whether you call the eighty eight zero five of the ten forty two s a four whether you call it an attachment or whatever you call it it's clear that they didn't file it so you know it doesn't really matter you know responding to the point that torture of a regime that you know the government we had their money and you know basically we got the time value of money but we're not paying interest congress knew that when it's an exodus said to congress knew that there was an overpayment that we had but congress nevertheless said the return has to be profitable before we have to pay interest on the overpayment so i mean sets a lower standard for a process that will return then for a valid return and i think it's actually the opposite whether return is valid for limitations purposes depends on a four factor test that sort of come down a common law that looks at things you know whether it purports to be a return whether it's an honest attempt to you know that kind of thing whereas here congress is saying they're requiring something more they're saying it has to be mathematically verifiable a return can be valid for statue of limitations purposes without being mathematically verifiable for purposes of paying interest on an over and also getting back to the point about whether the i r s could've done this itself with or could have figured it out self that is a factual dispute it was disputed in the court of federal plays willow whether or not word contain it right out of the statute and it's like this court also explained in columbia gap the taxpayer has to submit the information that you know whether or not this could have done it some other way really doesn't matter i used his sixty six eleven surely they used the word overpayment twenty one times before i mean in sixty six eleven before we got to g e so we have to assume the congress understood that they weren't talking  about overpayments and they talked about mathematical verification of the tax liability they redefined return in sixty six eleven g so we can presume that congress wasn't talking about the return as generally defined in sixty a letter whether it's more or less strict or not if we apply the words that were used by congress literally