a particular twenty eight u s c fourteen ninety one a what you do conveys ability to render judgment upon any place the united states and then under twenty eight u s c thirteen forty six eight one as stated government's response to that they say you didn't make a refund claim an administrative refund claim before the suit was commenced and your response to that is well an informal claim is sufficient under contributor vision  was there an informal claim that was filed before the commencement of this suit in september of two thousand and six yes house up in the administration in the collection process fair which was classified as a little error in my documentation i thought i used the revenue officer that the that they were collecting on tax that had been and and they should refund that it's an it based on the informal claim their supply their cases that state that even on the tax return itself if you make a notation any the time but you say this informal claim was filed right he had oral in the government's view that all the taxman paid that point no not according to the government not so was there an informal claim filed in between the time that the tax was fully paid and the commencement of the law says yes i get what when was that where was that there  government tax and pay i'm just trying to focus on one period of time in between the time that the government says the taxes paid and the filing of the lawsuit in september of two thousand and six was there  requests but that's but that happened before the taxes paid according to the government i'm just trying to find i may ask you to focus on a limited period of time between when the government says the taxes paid and the filing  a claim and then there's a modification by the government that the government presumed law or knew that you had filed a claim it was at him on it that's the provides for refund suit and then there's also the later file where you for your official notification that there's been a problem and then you later file suit and and then the government was arguing we had to follow the board theory of third party one and recognize that under the wit of the federal courts have jurisdiction but under opinion by justice ginsburg stated that the think it was according to the word taxpayer and six five five six five one one third party third party fines rather than any i think williams has set aside that and said anybody can bring a refund quite well now the next thing again is the supreme court case and if you recall the zero point case the the case was lost primarily because the parties went through administrative process on turned out to be an illegal taps the supreme court said a you don't have to follow the administrative processes on an illegal tax and nor do you have to actually fill in pet so n and all if there is a tax that is being deem illegal or improper following the administrative processes is it is no longer necessary either so the the next thing we have at least as far as the  penalties and tax and as leader of these talks about and also the group talks about we were doing dealing with sort of all taxes and penalties in this case nine forty nine forty three as well as some later ten forty taxes and therefore the claims had jurisdiction at least as to the nine forty nine forty three taxes as well as the penalties so therefore even under fowler was the government sites the payment doesn't is still in there the fact that there was a lien in it properly and what do you know after this case has been filed in the federal circuit court of appeals we have all the weeks this tends to taxpayer to the rights to subsequently three there are still at least on the books a prohibition from the ira's improperly heavy rains on someone's property improperly or wrongfully taking somebody who's living somebodies money and ultimately the federal circuit in other decisions so that we can look at the administrative processes and see if there was in fact an abuse of those processes and are there is a major problem with this and if congress says we want to give taxpayer a fair opportunity and at the same time not olson who's the head of the taxpayer advocate which was designed to be kind of  by by following the if the o she should have been deemed not responsible for any taxes from from ninety three part that's not a matter jurisdiction well some if it can't get you fired if i say that there is in fact a money to a violation of the i r s by failing to live here to its own due process procedures of the often compromised by not following the proper your own labels labor standards as comprised by she was having money that was pulled out that would then create a refund action and the interest on that itself so there would be the subsequent payments that would have been applied would have revenue procedure it says financial disability means being unable to manage financials or financial affairs so they cause of disability the inability must be due to medically determinable mental or physical and her seems like all foreigners as diagnosed with a doctor should comply and the required effect of disability and then goes on to be saying it has to be longer than twelve months so if she had from say ninety three and just you know when money wasn't necessarily due at least as to her and you know as and will use we can manufacture third party status if we have to and in this jurisdiction specifically insight into whitman and similar cases that jurisdiction exists and let's expressly revoked while that's true the problem for taxpayers here is that the statutes that they bring their claims and under do and they certainly they hadn't even alleged in the complaint because it was a new complaint that they had paid it off and so i honestly don't know where that stands and from looking at the believe that means it seems that there is still a balance due but i'm not certain behave cases the taxpayers could have had their offered compromise reviewed as well as the bankruptcy issue that your body of case could have been reviewed tax court had they been properly rates in the collection process the additionally if we look at the the argument for the a p a the i r s is directly not under