i think the other day seventy four million dollars and in twenty eighteen seventy five reprint taxpayers successfully on both the protections of the protest act and of time from twenty twelve to twenty fifteen where the attorney general was attempting to obtain necessary documentation and information from the state we do not have deep underlying work letter that we don't have any basis to agree with your contention that you owe x we disagree and this is the tax bill on the estate so the this type of action not just yours dushan but the furnishing of an independent cause of action for a private after that holding two news peterson's argued here is there any differences between  something called the estate tax refund phone which part more makes clear is a separate street revenue for four in the general revenue for a certain mr peterson claims he can obtain were not calculated properly so the first step is to file an amended return with the attorney general which assesses the substance of the claim that didn't happen here and then once the attorney general interest principal and penalty mr parmar just in case want to interest on top of all that because he was separated from that amount of money peterson doesn't see that but it doesn't matter because a concession to the request quite possibly for some kind of merely aeration i want to turn to the are the arguments about section fifteen as providing an independent circumstance we know from parmar that there's an exception to sovereign immunity when the state relief fund and you can vote with the procedures that are out or in a moment ago the initial application followed by the misunderstanding i think about what section fifty eight does and doesn't do he works in tandem with section sixteen of the act which is the section that explains that the attorney general can spring record to review it please the court i'd like to take this time to respond to some new arguments that were raised by the state for the first time in its reply br independent obligation to consider matters which go to the jurisdiction of the circuit court which can be waived access to the refund filing goes to that jurisdiction and finally contrary to the state's contention that peterson failed you this states contention that the refund fund is unavailable because we didn't first follow administrative procedures for a refund by filing a petition from the treasurer is not dispositive in this case and the reason for that is because  needed in the lower court record in the treasurer's answer that the treasurer relies on the illinois attorney general to determine whether an overpayment exists and whether a refund is due is a purely administrative function there for in this case where the disagreed that any refund was due there would have been no point to apply to the treasurer for a refund this is supported also in the record by the way that illinois supreme court has held that the ministry of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required parties are not required to exhaust as mistreated remedies when such administrative remedies would be futile or the time according to section fourteen which is the administrative refund procedure to file with the treasurer peterson would have had to file the claim for refund within four years after the estate tax return was due which was december twenty third twenty fifteen but the a g did the issue its final determination and then no further tax would be refunded until april twenty sixth and really four years and four months after the tax return w refund refund procedures would be a requirement whereas like in this case it would be completely useless we maintain that our claim is different from harmer's because the illinois supreme court in parma just held that heart can access the refund fund because he never claimed that there was to actual transfer his claim is based on something totally different his claim was based on the fact that when you see tax was paid in his case there was a short window where actually there was no illinois state tax and the winner was reinstated and applied retroactively so his claim was that they would have to transfer turn it off we do not allege that the record supports the fact that there was a tax judgment and that in the record c two forty that this had the required information well within the time to assess meaning well within three years of course they took three years and eleven months to a claim that no overpayment was made ok this was this is always been about an overpayment of tax as a result of an illegal assessment that is an assessment that was beyond the statue of limitations to assess and in fact their a timely assessment constitutes an overpayment even if the tax was due so there's absolutely no support for their contention that this was neither an overpayment or that overpayment record right now that's been cited for what constitutes an overpayment they seem to suggest that there is no overpayment if you actually owe the tax there's nothing to support that argument there is no provision to support that argument ok it could also mean without an assessment first with none of these examples deal with the central question here which is one of them necessity can be made after the time to actually collect the assessment has elapsed for example the provisions of the internal revenue c government had the means by which to collect that in this case by the time this government by the time the state had made its assessment it had absolutely no ability to collect on that assessment and that is the central focus of you didn't have to be litigation and there were some questions earlier about varying options they could have decided not to pay this is a three year run the judgment  mathematical error here there was no recalculation occasioned by discovery improper evaluation there was no there were no further negotiations they took the position that their valuation of the state did not