yes good morning yeah please the park my name is about the new housing for the commissioner of internal revenue the commissioner has brought this appeal asking the court to reverse the decision of the tax court and this interest abatement case tax court ordered the abatement of interest that accrued during a two month period in two thousand and nine the tax court aired here as a matter of law and its interpretation of the word excessive and section sixty four zero four and one of the internal revenue co sixty four zero four has the three subsections two two section and the first is excessive an amount and the third is is erroneous li or legally assess and doesn't that suggest that excessive includes something that is not so it looks as if it can be excessive in about or it can be erroneous fully assessed and i don't see what the well if you look at the appeals officers decision in this case she looked at certain other mechanical administrative requirements for assessment in order to ensure that it was properly done as part of the regular c d p hearing whether it was done by an appropriate person within the i r s requirements like  but it was isn't she looking for errors perhaps it would be easier to say that the commission interprets a one as referring to mathematical errors and a three as referring to the whole question of what the legal tax liability is that's not always a honor have handled tax cases where the issues were not at all mathematical right so the correct amount of tax liability can be there can be errors and determining the the tax liability that are not at all a question  errors what is the significance of the fact that this this litigation the issues in the case concern employment taxes so these are the taxes where the employer deducts deducts tax from the salary of his employees and remits that deduction to the  government that's right there's also an employer share right why why is this rule about three x or about you know what why is it special to employment taxes well that are subject to deficiency proceedings where i'm losing the thread so i said six sixty four or forty is that the one so sixty four zero four a is the one that has the excessive and taxes the other one is that the additional interest that accrued was not attributable to there are delays of the internal revenue service tax court went around both of those limitations and sixty four of court by invok and you're saying with regard to  of court out of the statute and it has the potential to be much broader because unlike sixty four or forty sixty four or a it's not limited to interest it is also if you look at what happened at ministry of labor in this case the appeals officer looked at a small number of relatively simple factors to determine whether interest should be abated she looked at whether it was excessive an amount she looked at whether it was assessed at the proper time she looked at whether notice of demand had been sent prior to assessment that's an example of an illegal a potentially illegal assessment that would not be excessive and she also looked at this question about whether the interest would have accrued in any of that event and therefore she was able to deny the request for interest abatement without doing a great deal of an additional investigation into the entirety of the taxpayer's circumstances which is what the tax interest is always running potentially broadens the scope of those proceedings dramatically to ask the appeals officers to take into account all the facts and circumstances even after they have done what the appeals officer did