movie admission of one of my law clerks wrong and sudarshan as a member of our by i know that he's a member of both the bars of california and the district of columbia and has wonderful standing in both of those bars but as you probably can testify with me he has contributed magnificently to the work of this court and i can move his of these three clerks for their excellent service their contributions toward the court is hard to imagine how we could handle the volume and difficulty the cases we have without it was just exceedingly bright and gauged yang who is a member of the bar in good standing of the high state of california and also the district of columbia i have knowledge based on personal contact and collaboration of the hope someday we'll see three of you standing at this podium arguing cases to the court congratulations to each of you all right now the case the case is at hand we'll hear argument first in four district court jury as invalid the government's appeal that decision but then withdrew their decision on june twenty fourth or not i just was recently informed that i do have copies of your honor's with care to see that so i was and this case could be several things one is making an invalid assessment perhaps a fraudulent assessment or at least ignoring the rules to making the assessment first the second misconduct could be that and again this would have to be argued on the facts i yes but the i r s actually in this case our argument is and again i believe this is more for for the factual findings but would be its if that will hold because the iris issue like a state letter stating that basically there was no to the y who is not a the target of any particular investigation so i'm still puzzled as to why that letter gives you any traction at all well if she's not the target i believe it could be you know the argument could be that if the reason for that is she received that letter she's not the guardian not any of our assets and it's certainly harassing the corporation  but that wasn't the theory was that the corporation was an alter ego of mr sydell but he had perhaps transferred it to his wife and to a corporate entity to avoid the taxation why weren't they within their rights to at least explore that avenue the i r s yeah well i would argue that it could well well if there's noise if there's no doubt assessment i would if there was i mean statements in addition to a lot of we haven't had the opportunity to even know you can't argue from things that are not in the record the only thing in the record to which you're pointing is a single letter you can't say there might have been some other  file their protest well because they didn't believe from the start that if it if there is you could potentially find that there was some sort of misconduct by the i r s that the next question becomes are we still allowed beyond the nine months the court claims dated with with broke create a proactive it's a proactive sixty five thirty two is a react if you will react because the i r s did something and if you never received notice of it in fact sixty five thirty two c never states that notice has to be given it totally silent on those sixty five eleven states it's not the nose is the actual statute brokamp the supreme court said four times in the statute that gave notice of that specific time period required and that was the notice in sixty five thirty two has also been addressed by this court the notice is true year to year two years after the date of nos and there is must be certified mail or registered mail under sixty five thirty to see it says no there is no mention of notice it just dates from the date of the well if we must implied then that the taxpayer got notice otherwise the i r s could levy if the iris doesn't miss action and which happen in super super mail to prevent notice actually being given within imply there is no notice and because we're going to ask you notice because otherwise how would you know if you can bring the claim and if the iris abuses that scratch or does it get noticed the clock would never start ticking so  i would it have to be that sixty five thirty two c there has to be actual tolling because it also doesn't scribe how notices get in sixty five thirty two a specifically says registered mail or certified mail under sixty five eleven california but i'm hoping you can tell us we're i'm still i'm sorry i can't this is i learned this this morning when i saw the documents that mr goldstein has brought mr sydell is not a party to this proceeding so might seem surprising that or lack of correctness or whatever happened elsewhere yes your honor and i wanted to point out also it's the same is it the same let me know if there's no longer a valid lobby is this action moot is essentially where i'm going no your honor i don't well the action is moot in the sense that maybe has already been honored and the i r s has collected the money and they have failed timely to challenge it so they have no basis for recovering the money but the part of the assessment itself would not have been an issue even if they had time to challenge the levy because their action would have been under seven section seventy four twenty six of the code and seventy four twenty six c says that the assessment is conclusively presumed valid purposes of the only action that they would have had available had they wrote it timely so in some sense the validity of the assessment is irrelevant i mean not in some sense in every sense in a wrongful levy action so this late development as to a finding of a jury that the assessment was not valid and i honestly don't know anything about what was before the jury in that case and i certainly don't know what underlay the fact that the appeal was voluntarily dismissed but in any event even if the assessment was not valid and that has been finally established it would not have been an issue in the wrongful levy action what would what would have been a dish you had the time the broader awful every action was whether or not the taxpayer mr sidel had an interest in property or for rivers so that the i r s could collect from for rivers property as as an alter ego of mr sydell and that's the only thing that would have been addition would have been questions of title and property ownership not the underlying assessment as to the equitable stoffel argument which now seems to have morphed into a return to an equitable tolling argument we argued in our grief and i think it's correct that the equitable tolling argument was waived it wasn't briefed by the appellant here this super male cargo case that has been mentioned in argument doesn't appear in the brief and and there was no argument about equitable tolling that was made on appeal the equitable stoppel argument is a new one and therefore we would argue not properly before the court but i think the court has explored whether or not showing it's been made even so we would say that there was certainly no affirmative misconduct by the i r s to the extent the argument is that a letter sent to mrs sidel in  nine misled her we would argue that the levees didn't take place until two thousand and three so even if from one thousand nine hundred ninety two thousand and three and loaded into some sense of security about her own assets and i would say that's not inaccurate her own assets have not been collected by two thousand and three when the levies took place certainly she was aware that there was a problem and that some assets to which she had a connection through her corporation were in jeopardy that the case th here i would just like to state two things i did not handle the case on on i'm only handling the appeal and i believe in superman as the court stated we need to khorat something you know something's going to change to stop it nine months is not a lot of time especially when you are not necessarily involved with legal counsel this isn't your issued a huge cold in two thousand and three if i understand the record that her company river when he's told that in april two thousand three hundred the letter have any relevance as to whether he thinks he should win rather than to tell what he regards as an iranian or improper well number one that's only if you check your account balance daily it's possible some people don't check their balances for more than nine months going to one and number two that's assuming the bank didn't send notice or that the irises not say to the bank please don't notify the taxpayer get that would be  correct but i would argue that the iraq still has that affirmative duty to send a notice that it's not the third party's duty and third party notice when next to all five of the address actually has a senator actually the taxpayer all right i think we