and it also has implications for the collection of judges judgments in minnesota so the trustee didn't really have the opportunity to pick and choose this was the case that was before her of course the issue on appeal is whether a property tax refund is exams exempt of government assistance based on need and the trustee asks this court to hold that it is not government assistance based on need and to overrule the decision of the bankruptcy court for three reasons first of all the property tax refund act does not address basic economic needs a second the refund is available to those with high incomes and therefore  does not address the basic economic needs and then last treating a property tax refund as government assistance based on the leads to an unreasonable result just very brief act around on the case  she claimed her two thousand and twelve property tax refund of one thousand nine hundred forty six dollars as exempt under minnesota statute five fifty point three seven subdivision fourteen claiming that it's government assistance based on need now the statute to doesn't define the term government assistance based on need it does however list several programs that are considered government assistance based on need the tax refund is not one of those programs listed but the word including is not a word of limitations and is a correct your honor that's correct and so that leads us to the question whether a property tax refund is government assistance based on need to make that determination we need to look at the statutory construction which leads me to my first point and that is the purpose of the property tax refund act  purpose of this chapter is to provide property tax relief to certain persons who ranch or own their home stands there's no need based reference there you know this is designed to assist those that are needy or any of that type of language the minnesota supreme court discussed the purpose of the property tax refund act it's a one nine hundred seventy eight case and the court acknowledge that it certainly helps those folks that have low income is but it's also designed to assist the middle classes and something that's designed to assist the middle class is not exclusively designed to assist those with low incomes or to address basic economic needs and the court also discussed the overall purpose of the statute and that is equalization so not only social and economic but equalization among geographic areas  and an example of that in minnesota it's common for property taxes in the metro the seven county metro area to be more than taxes in the area and so the purpose of the statute is sort of equalize that so people in different parts wages or basically shielded from from garnishment for a period of six months yes your honor could you tell me as a practical matter how they works i'm just looking to enter the statute says to their exam for a period of six months after the debtors return to employment or farming and after all public assistance for which eligibility existed has been terminated so if if the debtor and in if if a wealthy de were receiving a refund every year that is a practical matter their wages would be exempt forever correct and they would be examined for six months a post judgment collection and so not only would the bankruptcy debtor be able to examine this but it does have far reaching implications for collection and it just certainly you know it just doesn't make sense that an income that has or an individual that has an income of one hundred thousand dollars a year would be able to protect their wages and income from their creditors with regard to the property tax refund there are three different ways which a person will qualify for a property tax refund the first is a homeowner and the income limit for a homeowner is one hundred three thousand seven hundred twenty nine dollars and that is  one hundred three thousand seven hundred twenty nine dollars and that's for claims filed in two thousand and thirteen for the two thousand and twelve tax year i believe that may be  the second type refund is for ranters and the income limit for renters is fifty six thousand two hundred one thousand dollars and the third manner in which a homeowner can receive a refund is if their property tax increase property taxes increased by twelve percent from the previous year and there's no income limit for this form of a property tax refund so you could have an individual that's making five hundred thousand dollars a year that reasoning is supported by the in re hardy case which it is the case that was recently decided by this court and in that case this court looked at the child tax credit and the hearty debtor took her exemptions under missouri law which provides a exemption for public assistance benefits and bear the income limits were actually lower than they are for the property tax refund act the limit was one hundred ten thousand dollars for married individuals or seventy five thousand dollars modified gross income for unmarried individuals whereas with the property tax refund act it may be one hundred three thousand dollars for a household of one mr position that the reasoning and hearty certainly support treating the property tax refund actually here as being not exempt because like the child tax credit the property tax refund just does not address basic economic needs the last reason and i touched on it a bit is that interpret in the statute this way it leads to an absurd result on the legislature does not intend an absurd result and the statute five fifty point three seven provides exemptions for bankruptcy and also for post judgment collection so if this court upholds the bankruptcy court decision there is the very likely  possibility that we will have folks that are making very high incomes that will be able to protect their income from creditors you i also wanted to address the bankruptcy court address the toms that case and that deals with the earned income credit and that is different than the property tax refund act because the earned income credit has a clear lead based purpose where and i think in the property tax refund act is not happy that so for these reasons we asked the court to overturn the bankruptcy court's decision and i'd like to save my remaining time for abo exemption could be claimed under missouri law as a public assistance benefit a federal additional child tax credit and this case that we have before us today your honor is different than the hardy case because the missouri exemption statute in hardy provided that a public assistance benefit was exempt here we have a different phrase with a different meaning the phrase that provides an exemption in the minnesota statutes is government assistance based upon need the court noted in the hardy that there was no definition there was no statutory explanation of what to the legislature mean by by public assistance benefit i note that the mis statute inherited tracks the language and structure of the federal exemptions statute under section five twenty two d ten a and courts have struggled over what does the word public assistance the phrase rather mean in and so if someone over withholds their payments to the i r s it is from their wages every year and they're entitled to a refund because they over withheld they're just getting back of the theory paid in how can that be public assistance well your honor i think that we have to look to the legislature and what if anything to the legislature say about the reason for getting the refund and so the hand though we have plenty of evidence both from the statute and from minnesota supreme court that tells us what is the reason that the person is getting back that the taxpayer is getting back part of that tax that they've paid and i  that the debtors not going to get back any refund if they don't pay the property tax and that's apparent from the tables that i'm talking about that are exhibits he and if a part of the court's record  there wouldn't be much guidance for the court and we'd be having the same analysis as the court used in re hearty and i in my twenty eight j letter i pointed out that there were three decisions in re wilson in re caution in re today a listing of what did the legislature mean by the phrase government assistance based on need and also an opinion from the state's high court explaining what is the nature of this property tax refund so we can tell whether it's their intention that this fit within that framework of subdivision fourteen of minnesota statutes section five five zero point three seven i'd point out that we don't even need to look at the action ary in this case as the court in re hardy because of that explanatory language in the statute but then you do agree that there are three bases for being eligible for the refund thousand and some change for two thousand and twelve but one hundred three thousand for two thousand and thirteen as counts of the trustee noted the refund gets smaller and smaller and disappears completely at that level of income and then your honor the threshold percentage of the person's income where the property tax refund kicks and begins to increase as income goes up and so the third criteria is how much of the refund get back when you compare that percentage so your i think it's manifest that that's needs based if you just looked at those tables and this is even without looking at the title of the act that we're talking about minnesota's nine hundred seventy five property tax refund act that's just additional evidence and i think also the minnesota supreme court's characterization of what is the purpose of this law we're talking about is also instructive as well but i think it's apparent your honor from the table that are that the that are used in that are explained to me because of the will call it tapering of the of the benefit for higher income folks yes your honor because of the tapering and then also when you compare that in ri hardy in ri hardy we don't have the anomalous situation as was present in the hardy where the refunds not available to the broke just of the people and what i mean is the opinion pointed out that if your income was less than ten thousand dollars roughly you couldn't get the additional child tax credit which i think would be perplexing as well and it was much of the basis for the court's ruling here either that you noticed we don't have that here we have a if you look at it you'd say well it's needs based and legit legislature use the words really use the word relief over and over again talking about why you get this money but when that happened you say it's need today stands to those in the third category whose taxes went up twelve percent or more they had no income limitations well your honor it is less obvious before the over twelve percent increase category of property tax refund contained in  subdivision to age that that's needs based i would point out though that sense that subdivision to h providing for this over twelve percent increase property tax refund is placed right after the section where the  property tax refund needs based language is contained but the legislature may very well have decided you know what when someone gets an over twelve percent increase in one year in their property tax legislators just decided ok that that means they need this very same kind of relief and i point out your that very same section two h says that if your property tax went up because he improved the property in that year then you can't get this over twelve percent increase property tax refund in any event that's a different basis for a refund and that question is not before the court because this debtor has simply the sixty dollars per month social security eighty eight year old widow last sunday sometimes around sometimes around when she rented a room that's right although she didn't have it on the opposition dates but your honor it's almost as if the legislature were talking about this woman when they when they passed this this you picked the right case probably true sir let me answer judge fetterman question to ms williams if you're receiving the refund because you paid the tax are you not just getting your own overpayment back whether he's dragging your overpayment back and what's important about that is renters for extraordinary property tax burdens that's what i meant when i said that we could tell what the purpose of this program was and that it's government assistance based on need by looking at what the legislature extraordinary property tax burdens state relief to homeowners that's what they called the act that's why i said your honor it's as if they were speaking to the debtor in this case your honour's are in minnesota statutes two ninety eight point zero two what that the states in that very short subdivision is that the purpose of this law is to provide property tax relief to certain persons who own or rent their homes dunce the case of in riana her also said that the intent of the minnesota property tax refund program was to shift property tax burdens according to a family's ability to pay that's at page eight forty in the northwest reporter version of this case i would submit that it's very clear that the legislature considers government assistance based on need because of language like that on the same page under the minnesota supreme court said that the property tax relief bill was passed to help the poor both working and non working and the middle class that's the judgment of the minnesota legislature about who is going to get this relief based on need i don't think it's for this court to say well that's just  simply too much of of a refund it's simply available to people who are middle class it can't be aid to the poor well the minnesota legislature relief based upon government assistance rather based upon need is what's exempt in subdivision fourteen and the legislature said here's how we determine who is in need of relief that means it's different than the case of injury hardy where the court did after the attempt to find some meaning for the phrase public assistance here it's a different phrase and your honors the trustee pointed out that the list of programs contained in subdivision fourteen seven of them are programs administered by the minnesota commissioner of human services and so the trustee has argued that because under a different  the trustees correctly noted those legislatures the commission of human services in minnesota shall administer all programs of public assistance and there's a couple of at least a couple of  programs listed as subdivision fourteen that are not administered by the commissioner of human services for example s s i county relief and energy and fuel assistance which is administered by the commissioner of revenue so we can tell the legislature your honour's didn't mean to restrict the programs in that subdivision to only programs administered by the commissioner of human services as the trustee argued in fact it be very logical to conclude cers that the caption of the statute public assistance which is followed immediately by the phrase all government assistance that those two phrases mean something different we can tell because the legislature just changed in two thousand and nine the language of that statute from relief based upon need to government assistance based upon  and if this court's going to give meaning to all the words of that statute it should recognize the legislature chose the words carefully and then that and they intended words that were different words or different phrases have a different meaning so it is perfectly program just like energy assistance or fuel assistance administered by the commissioner of revenue or just like s  fourteen and the court pointed out in the decision below that forty two u s c section thirteen eighty two eighty five and six point out that any amount received from i'm sorry let me just read verbatim any amount received from any public agency as a return or refund of taxes paid on real property is to be excluded from the computation of income for eligibility  indicates that the commissioner of human services administers all forms of public assistance provided for under state law there is the distinction of state law so the federal programs wouldn't fall one for public assistance based on need and then property tax refunds are actually in a separate category so if they were to be considered together you would expect to find them under the same number and in addition to that there are also  him scholarships and other things like that that are not public assistance based on need that are excluded from income for social security purposes so it's our position that the reliance on that is misplaced equalization so different folks in different areas of the state are paying sort of the same portion of their property same paying the same portion for their property taxes so equalization and the court specifically indicated that it has also addressed to the middle class and as this quote court noted it can be a harder case it can never be addressed to the middle class or to the higher incomes which again the twelve percent increase apportioned definitely speaks to higher incomes and mr andreessen pointed out that that's not the property tax refund that the debtor in this case received she received it under the homeowner homeowners refund however that's that's not necessarily a distinction that matters because again the  leave the ruling is going to impact all debtors and all collection activity in minnesota just not just mine that are receiving the homeowner's refund and of course the homeowner owner's refund does have one hundred three thousand dollars income limit with regard to the sliding scale aspect of the property tax refund you know there's a sliding scale that's used to determine refunds of federal income taxes as well and federal income taxes are certainly available for the trustees to collect or for judgment creditors to collect in collection activity so i would say that that's not necessarily