applied so in some ways he's not actually even coming under the language of section fifteen but even if we were to hold the section fifteen applied to him it's still a claim that he's making that this is a waiver of point maybe i didn't because clearly he's trying to argue that that doesn't i realize that but the reason he's challenging that is because illinois imposing a tax that arises under that isn't that what the scenario the nature of this protest is one that is so outside the scope of the general notion of protest in that a competent tech professional reasonable business person wouldn't know about protests because this isn't something with the underlying would be available to his and three on the money in the sense of it's in your complaint i believe we would argue that if there is no tax due is it in your complaint no no i believe we had taxes the treasury trends over ninety five percent of the general revenue fund and retain six percent of the amount of the tax that was paid to the resources to make everything so you requesting would be guidance to say that the imposition of rhetoric to tax is not permitted and so i think that future guidance would be for the benefit of the defendant and this has to stick to the attorney general completed should not be maintained so i think we don't know yet so yes it applies to this point or it would be retroactive not respect but as it applies to the attorney general of it is not caused by this statute which is unique in the nature of power it extends the penalties and interest then at least we're entitled to be back in the circuit court for the judge to hear evidence as to why mr farmer change practices you're asking for five hundred thousand dollars back yes from the show revenue from well from wherever it ultimately needs to be paid so we're asking for a court to rule that the text should the state was already almost twenty months late so i believe that in an effort to get the tax on file to ensure that he wouldn't end up with personal liability he went first and which was paid and then fi could not get the item that they wanted to buy store and therefore that was the to rest couldn't buy the item unless they paid the tax yes that's  were i'm talking about the fact that b of the whole exception swallowing the rule you mentioned that it's different in the sense that personal liability may attach and that's why the payment was made if if the if there was a protest protest hacked action filed would that state any personal liability until that claim was determined i would assume it would since you are going or are you as a tax liability and you will have that because again by paying the protest your hate it not you so i guess in that sense it would unless the i mean your home so when they ask the question about all taxes are paid under threat or some kind of penalty you indicated well i'm glad you asked the question because this is a different tax that would shift the burden to the personal tax payer and if the if the protest yakked would somehow insulate their personal taxpayer is there that great a difference now i would say there's a great difference but i think there's enough of a difference where step one before you realize whether the protest that should be used or utilized would be first looking whether there is a rest it's compelling him to pay it sooner and getting my away and he does what a reasonable person like you pays the tax and then ends up going to the circuit court to figure out why he paid it when he should relief that we're asking is for this court to reverse the trial court's holding with respect to the statute as to what's possible has forced personal liability classes are concerned such intent of the act provides that the executor of the state is liable for taxes to the extent that the property was received or controlled by him didn't do anything for twenty months and then just so the argument that he was under duress makes some sense with regard to his claim that he's seeking a refund under the refund act that's not possible under section seven because section seven provides it's beginning if the state tax credit is reduced after the filing of the illinois transfer tax return then you can draw on that on the report but he doesn't and doesn't deny the fact that his state tax credit which is calculated  throughout the litigation is unprecedented in the law there's no per se statute for the us if there were per se statutory arrest and every taxpayer would in fact be someone who was painted around under darius and every taxpayer when ever they decided that they wished they had money twenty months later twenty years later he would be able to argue back then i pay that tax under duress i'm sure of it because there were penalties and interest which by the way the state that never threatened  estate would have been liable for that payment not him there was no personal liability if he had waited for the state of the home to go after the estate so this this idea that somehow he was worried about the person responsible for this money is is not true he that case the state would have paid him interest on the money that was in that special fund waiting for a judgment because the act of protests money that provides that there's interest paid later so he had to perfectly good about he has no as you i think your honor mentioned he has no standing to seek a declaration to help determine general for future cases he's got to argue about his case and his case doesn't involve some future thank you for your arguments today in europe used with