the record the internal revenue service provided in this case is entirely based upon the declaration of the christina thompson the supervisor that was submitted in this case it is no approval language on that signature there is no reference to penalties on that signature there is simply her signature on the dr about the government  declaration she outlines what she needs to do she needs to to the word are required as used by her in a declaration she is required to memorialize for approval declaration there is never an affirmative statement that the signature on the thirty day notice form was her intention to approve the penalties or declaration in assumed internal rules of the internal revenue service for the taxpayer what i am saying is that the internal rules of the commissioner does have probative value clearly in the evidence that they submitted to the horn pastes she says no she is following the protocol in the internal rules on the commissioner the thirty day notice goes out and under clay that's too late you have to approve it at or before the time the thirty day notice goes out  motion for reconsideration the government alternatively relied on the thirty day letter self and with the supervisor in a written form find a document notifying the taxpayer vision and which expert all noted with against the backdrop following contrary to the evidence provided in the court as i explained she did not say that the council is saying that but she said something much different so just  so decades before and there's a lot of keep on talking about this issue before play so why couldn't tell me who have raised this issue why weren't they why are they on notice this with an issue even for the of determination which occurs a lot later than the thirty days notice and there's a lot of reasons as stated in clay as why that change shouldn't be followed except for the nd circuit because i could start taxpayer did you want to save any time for honor all right i just wanted that on the record the only issue remaining on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the taxpayer's motion f reconsideration that motion sought to raise a new argument after the trial and after the tax court and issued its decision in denying that motion the tax court did not abuse its discretion for two reasons st is that the motion did not satisfy the standard for reconsideration and nd the new argument that the taxpayer sought to raise was without merit in any event here with respect to the issue of supervisory approval in that case the th circuit held that the supervisor signature on a thirty day letter proposing penalties and transmitting an underlying report by the examining agent in which the examining agent had determined the penalty should be proposed satisfied the pla language of the statute the writing requirement that the approval be in writing in this case the thirty day letter which was not as a score as pointed out in the record at the time of the trial or the court's decision which the taxpayer sought to introduce on reconsideration the thirty day letter itself as as court has noted was signed by the immediate supervisor of the examining agent and the letter itself stated that we have enclosed that letter which is in the record it s u r two thousand and seven states that we have enclosed an examination report showing proposed changes to your tax for the period shown above and further down in the letter it refers to payment of the penalties or if the tax payer were to disagree with the proposed changes they could request a conference with the supervisor or with the appeals office be in close examination report that was referenced in turn includes the report in which the examining agent had determined to propose the fraud and in transmitting that report with the thirty day letter that explicitly referenced the report and the proposed changes there in the immediate supervisor signature on that cover letter satisfy the requirements of the statute that is precisely the holding of the circuit's decision in t v the rosehill macoris and his reading too much into that declaration the day the declaration simply states in paragraph eight that to document my approval on january th two thousand and thirteen i signed a civil penalty approval for it certainly does not rule out the notion that she could have provided written supervisory approval elsewhere or at a nother point in time which she in fact had done in this case again the thirty day letter on which the taxpayer realize here on reconsideration was not in the record at the time  this evidence was provided to the and submitted for trial and relied on by the commissioner and the commissioner again was unable to explore the arguments that are being made now by the taxpayer with respect to what this declaration means but i bear reading of the declaration cannot be construed to rule out that she had previously provided written approval of the penalty the nd point i in any event the motion for reconsideration did not satisfy the standard for reconsideration the trial court does not abuse its discretion by precluding new arguments on reconsideration and moreover there was no intervening change in the prior or intervening change in the controlling  this case my own my friend refers to the decision clay vs commissioner by the tax court but has failed to point to any prior controlling wall that was changed by that decision and specifically if it's the decision the nd circuit decision and shy that was the priors and killing law that decision was not controlling in this case decision in play vs commissioner so for these three reasons the tax court's decision should be affirmed was there any other questions from the panel i will include signature on the thirty day notice form was her approval of the penalties in fact it's pacifically not mentioned and if that's really what she meant contrary to what she said in the declaration and should have reconsideration with a declaration from her which would say that her signature was intended as her approval of the civil penalties they did not because they could not because if she did that she would have violated every single procedure that we've outlined and they outlined in the declaration of what she needs to do before she can sign off on a civil penalty declaration that's why it wasn't