issued in twenty thirteen collected and twenty thirteen supposedly went to judgment in twenty thirty and the certification came out in twenty fourteen i property taxes and property taxes to my clients tax bills in twenty fourteen in order to do the second adjustment when the statute said you could to make one adjustment in the subsequent year it's the key phrase in this portion of texas in twenty thirteen then the clerk would probably have used the place factors like you said until they got the new certification and then quote unquote in the next subsequent year w clinton fourteen by virtue of this statute when the placement factors are shown to be different he gets to square and add or subtract from the twenty thirteen taxes in order to square up to twenty twelve statute she thought the word was a so it's clear that's an indefinite article v is a specific article the other thing too is you read eighteen one fifty seven one fifty five and her material in general said we used the words in the su it the department will make mistakes and you know the process to address that mistake again i think coming back to it is the system that we have and the general assembly has drawn the line and taxpayers have to follow  as far as i know of these twenty twenty five maybe thirty years these provisions of section eight hundred that was my point was this threat that back in the seventy's there was no stature it was done by the clerks despite the fact that there was a statute that didn't authorize clerk did so because in the statute it repeatedly says shall put these into effect second i there is no temporal restriction on the ability of the partner of revenue to do a portion on purpose but we will go there and what about councils argument about finality then it's some point that taxes for twenty twenty have to be put asunder and we're done i don't have a good response to that  you fared in judgment and i think that's a good point by counsel i also think that the legislature drafted this giving logically crosswords or partner of revenue on these cross county trade issues certification was for correction of something that happened in the year previous then the correction should be done in the subsequent year it doesn't necessarily mean that it there's only one year and everything  state general assembly specifically directed the tax objection complaints name the county treasurer ex officio collector for any and all tax objection complained so that's why the problem was it was not brought there was not a name to inform the department of revenue to seize the shish and then it would be a question whether the clerk was or wasn't forced to result in effect be a minion  of the department revenue so for the reason why i was asking was i was trying to find an off similar to situation where forty two cars are granted  a card holders who lost their voice cars are given the opportunity of some judicial review and then there was this issue about whether or not the state police should be conserved parties necessary parties were a portion members then the department of revenue is not supposed to be issuing because of what your interpretation is which to be would seem to me that maybe they should be apprised of the fact that they're doing referring to the clerk as the clerk being the one who is meted out justice he's doing what is best since that least in my opinion is a minister function act that's what we saw all that the quote unquote powers that be all ministry ministerial duty now this it made the correction because it never had been made how do we know that which one of the three shots was right we don't know so if property tax extensions are going to be based upon a county clerk's perception of a