massachusetts department of revenue was a recap of the not so prior to two thousand and five the bankruptcy code also failed to define returns the bankruptcy court adopted to be a test one of the st court to adopt the issue of definition of return for destruction ability purposes when a taxpayer six to discharge state municipal or other tax liability so the be at that as has never apply to a massachusetts tax return has never played to a state tax return to be fifty different rows at the bankruptcy is going to have to deal with because each of the fifty states can have a different road zachariah like a kid has only fifteen states who have a definition of returns verses a city of get her in has a really good analysis as to whether to be a test apply in that circumstances because the city of get or in did not have a definition of returns as a court look st at what the local laws were because into bankruptcy call it doesn't make much sense to me that massachusetts tax laws were thinking about this discharge provision when they passed the mass choose your argument about certainly the rule but having to staple to jack in a particular place on the foam is not something that would render the thing not a return at all and as name because brief points out there's a whole whole lot of massachusetts law that indicates that a late return is nevertheless a retard and truth might of that same thing is true in the federal tax law so seems to me we got a conflict it's easy to resolve that conflict we have with supposed to the canon stella's you supposed to read the entire section harmoniously secondly exeter is a really impossible though i mean should we follow the lead of the supreme court and the ransom case and interpretating a clickable and a way that makes sense in the context of the entire statute rather than and a very rote formalistic way attention to the background on how we got here we're really here for justice and i say that kind of tongue in cheek it's because the case called justice that case was entered in two thousand and fifteen this adversary underlying all this is two thousand and sixteen relying on just the opinion was entered in two thousand and seventeen and you know we are in two thousand and nineteen at the present moment all the bankruptcy court cases existing that have not been reversed are finding in favor of my client that's  they say to you that we do not need to follow justice and we were arguing either started the sizes or do follow justice and that's been the argument from day one they tell you that they don't need to because we are state court and they are federal court all these other decisions and if you look at a district court opinion they basically said as a distinction without a difference that's the easy way of handling that issue the alternative is to go into the definitional revealed that is what is the word to really mean and we put that in no timely component there's nothing to pour about it so my client is meant either blacks or even their own definition so we believe that they're constantly is totally inappropriate and trying to saying it is synonymous with the word timely further say look at our particular statute and it says you have to file by the th when we point out it's not well written the term was made by the th day it's literally that's the word they use made it what we interchangeably use the word made with the word filed no they don't if you look at their appendix they attached sections b of sixty two c of their code and it says filed as for partnership returns by the th day of the rd month you look at the next section section seven is as follows for those who file executor returns the state of massachusetts knows when the file returns and when to use the word filed for some reason i can explain it for individuals they use the word made and so i point out my brief can mean just meeting with an account or with yourself and preparing a return but the bottom line is everyone understands this return was in turn filed with us later not does not make a difference as to whether it's  and then on top of that your footnote eight was not argument of your footnote a specifically said you were not going to follow the per se rule and for that reason we say that was an error and that description of the justice decision and so in fact i agree with justice anderson i find that the reading  failure otherwise is basically a constitutional wrecking ball on five hundred and twenty three dollars a to be roman at two i called a little i nominate two so we read it as being the resulting absurd result created by this conflict thank you very much ma'am please the court i would like to thank this court for granting permission for me to participate in oral argument this is the st chance and amakosa has had to weigh on this issue that has been hit several courts before and i appear here pro bono publico as a  bankruptcy expert i would like the court also know my position is shared by the american bankruptcy institute which is a blue ribbon commission of debtors and creditors lawyers my position is shared by the internal revenue service which is no shrinking violet when it comes to interpreting the tax laws there are many people who are worried about what they perceive as misreadings of this statute and so i'm grateful for the time to appear here i would also like to say to judge anderson i read the justice opinion as you read it and would accord you chevron deference in interpreting that opinion  i think it's a fair assessment but we reached the matter today thank you have a very fair enough sir if i hailed something that i didn't intend that made a mistake of course of course of course and i would like to say one thing to which is  not particularly briefed which is the if this court affirms it will be creating a circuit split and different courts of appeals have different comfort levels of circuit splits eyes wanted to suggest that the th circuit in the in ray smith case that came out a couple years ago has indirectly affirmed they prefer the indirectly rejected the the one day late stabled return whatever you want to call the rule has rejected this reading in affirming the continued vitality of the of the pleasurable non bankruptcy law would be law pertaining to definitions and filing requirements would be filing requirements pertaining to the definitional issue and i believe the problem with little to i as it's been referred to is that it's not just in contravention of the t r w case but also the case from this court that says you have to keep the structure of a statute preserved and that's not was a florida state with a tripartite structure and the evisceration of a little too high to being a minuscule number of cases in the i his determination is just the tip of the iceberg because as my friend trumpets in their brief some states like massachusetts don't even have six thousand and twenty eight provisions which makes it doubly infinitesimally small of one little two i could still apply now heard a new argument presented today i'm not sure this is in their brief that may be a little too i has a more expansive scope now due to some of the later content in the hanging paragraph that says it doesn't just apply to tax returns at a price to stipulated judgments and orders as well might my st reaction to this new argument is that i'm not sure that those stipulated judgments and whatever the terminology the congress uses would not previously be covered by the beard test i'm not sure that's actually breaking any new ground and my nd reaction to that is that any infinitesimal increase that we have would still be microscopically small and we cannot escape the unavoidable reality that reading at the way reading a of people who would a number of returns at one time wait two years and so this is just so let's start with what the supreme court says the supreme court says we have to interpret the bankruptcy code strictly in favor of discharge literally they're asking for exceptional treatment that all the other creditors don't get they're asking for special treatment and the supreme court says we interpret it strictly now the suggestion is did the baps e p a which was an anti abuse provision did that in any way change the supreme court's orientation to how to interpret the bankruptcy code and the answer is no the principle of strict interpretation in favor of the debtor has been reaffirmed by the supreme court since perhaps e p a and another important supreme court interpretive rule of the bankruptcy code also reaffirmed since  a is we should not construe the code in a manner that affects massive changes to pre code practices so if you're wrestling with language it's giving us some difficulty in the bankruptcy code do not presume a massive change taking ninety nine percent of late filing returns and declaring them no longer returns would be a massive change it's a massive change with no in disha of congressional intent and in fact is contravened by the only and issue of congressional we ten we have we literally have paragraph eliminates the the language which is inconsistent with with little too if you interpret filing requirement to include timely filing oh the problem with the problem with inter being a time a filing requirement is one it takes the definition of a political will that we think would we would not suggest and i would take the definition of a playable that would be contrary to the debtors discharge in violation of one supreme court instruction it would take the definition of a playable that would be in tension with its ordinary meaning because it would make us to come to the the word used in their brief is counter intuitive conclusion that a tax return is not a return when it's late and the supreme court under its bond case says consider the ordinary meaning when you have a definitional fight and meaning of a pledge coupled to me means it rw that relate political requirements would be ones that are defining what a tax return is we gave a perfect example in the brief of a massachusetts regulation that is captioned literally requirements of a properly filed return that would be we concede an example of an apply coble filing requirements requirements of a properly followed return no mention in that whatsoever of timing timing is stopped with separately in massachusetts of what is that regulation i think that regulation appears on page fifteen of our brief and it's also ransom's requirement that it means suitable fit or relevant in the context of a definitional clause of a statute what is the definition of a tax return a political bill should mean anything that specifies the definitional content such as that massachusetts regular  can see that there is also concern i would say about the policy incentives in case the court wants to figure out which is maybe why so many people are concerned about this misreading of the statute and that is if i took that opinion seriously that dollars a is the sole permissible late return that could be filed we have a bizarre incentive attributed to the congress which is if you imagine a situation with a taxpayer who discovers in her car the return and she forgot to file and it's able to  and said oh i should file this right away because i felt it a day late they should be advised by a well thinking attorney for heaven sakes don't file that tax return because if you file that tax return that will never allow you a bankruptcy discharge if god forbid you need to go to bankruptcy three years from now but if you hide from the i r s and don't play your taxes and don't follow your taxes you roll the dice and there's a chance they'll give you a six thousand and twenty and if they give you six senate circuit nor the st circuit goes through a pleasurable yeah and i did and the concern is with the broader interpretation of a placebo you there's no escaping the problem of the black ink or the stapled return of the one day late it's as terribly mischievous matter if let's say i'll take your word that that's not in the massachusetts regulation but let's say that that was in the alabama regulation would it would your view be that if the rule is blue ink in massachusetts but that's just an instruction the rule in