tax payer the i rest is taking the position that only individual tax payers and suffer economic hardship in the face of iraq's legacy as a result the irises created a bright line rule that corporations can never suffer economic hardship and before funding in a timely fashion and was unable to meet most of its basic operationalise subsidies which include included at some point attacks by the beast now so we asked i'm sorry go ahead i'll go again and so we asked for a collection process hearing on the grounds of economic hardship showing that through what this means making payroll through receivership because it's a different operate that's not the heart that's not the hardship that was asserted before the before the i r s well the problem becomes that when a if the levee were to go through they would freeze all of their assets so whatever's in the by your client anymore and that was no specific assertion of hardship as i recall was the operating expenses couldn't be paid for that nursing home there's no possibility at this point that operating the nursing home in part for the benefit of the i r s why is lindsey matter nursing home your client why is it interest in a hardship that ongoing for your economic hardship i mean i am sure there's a hardship for a hundred thousand dollar welby whatever the number is but that's not the that's not the position you took before the commissioner it was you couldn't pay salaries for an ongoing operation and that operation is no succeeds here in ri it requiring his license because there may not be any more nursing home but the time he applies or retains that license well i think i financing the liabilities not going to go away and so in this particular situation the government intends on enforcing the like go against the nursing home in whatever form it's operating in the future and because there are assets available i do think there's a personal stake in interest and when she has in this particular the outcome of this case why would it be desired operate nursing homes in the future and hopefully it will be able to do so be a concrete injury that would give us jurisdiction over this why isn't it someone let the people or courts know about this it seems like we shouldn't be considering this in the first instance it would have been relevant to their inquiry apparently no one notified them of the receivership men were gone knowing at the time that right know you're here do you just want to avoid the pain and anguish economic hardship regulation but we don't want to avoid pain we want to have the opportunity to demonstrate to the iraqis that they're suffering from economic hardship based on the circumstances as a result should be afforded that it was an arbitrary construction of the statutes to restrict that really sold individual taxpayers instead of allowing a corporation to demonstrate economic hardship relief in that situation there was simply no statutory gap for the ira still with the court do is to substitute the iressa judgment for that of congress and enforcement the iris does not have the authority to alter men and or actually provisions that which congress left out of the statute congress and that restrict the relief to individual taxpayers they use the general regulations and in that statute congress restricted the relief the basic living expenses and those dealt with offers of compromise on the grounds of affect the tax ministration and those are generally done equable grounds and so congress restricted the stashing away it crumble were simply asking for corporations they have the opportunity to assess things and its plain language to be able to demonstrate economic hardship relief promulgating a treasury regulation that ignores the economic realities the corporations can suffer economic hardship if businesses regardless of the circumstances of whether they're not being able to pay their tax liabilities i think that's an arbitrary and capricious construction of the statute and should be overrule and we don't feel that the case is new and i know the course focus quite a bit on that but we do feel there's relief from one of the akin to that available to individual that is that basic operating expenses be free from levy so there's an individual's basic living expenses are free from levy where economic hardship is shown however that question is now which is a corporation that corporation doesn't have anything to do with the actual nursing homes being operated at those facilities a third party under different names it's different corporation is running now the receivers now in this  practice let's say the current receiver substitute receiver is very successful and makes a million dollar profit and so i assume that the receiver would u that million dollars profit in part to distribute the profits to creditors which is a risk and also to mr jools corporation the owner of the nursing home and so i owned by a different person they don't have anything to do with the man or nursing home doesn't have anything to do with what's going on don't have to do with the operation that it's ownership it hasn't changed right well he  doesn't own a nurse a nursing operation any more he doesn't but they don't have any operations right now so what about the what assets do they still have well we don't know yet fact i mean that's our we've been working off of the state court receivership documents and we can't tell what resources it has right now cognizable interest in the outcome of the only question in this case which is its eligibility for economic hardship release with respect to the liability that's outstanding and that the i r s could still collect if this case i dismissed that doesn't create a personal stake in this case where the only question is their eligibility for economic hardship relief it doesn't create a personal stake in any other collection issues because they don't they don't not an issue anymore because the guy's not home field and so once this issue is moot in the news there's nothing more to be done on them with respect to the saying is it only clearly came to us when news operations closed you learned you talk about when you but when you learned of it when it became a week or two maybe different things well when you're talking about not having operations anymore that didn't occur until october twenty seventh for sure we think it was under way in july twenty seventh when they started to introduce the agreements with the third party to take over the operation but the operations were actually taken over until when was mr morgan appointed as a receiver oh that was well i guess that was in july twenty sixth even the receivership was established ok so when the receipt when mr morgan was appointed as a receiver under oklahoma law at that point the owner of th saying no this corporation no longer as you point out when did out earlier double overhead an interest in the nursing home it was now in the hands of the receiver who is you just commented was operating the nursing  now not only for the benefit of the owner of the corporation but also for creditors like direct so why didn't mr morgan's appointment in july two thousand and sixteen i thought that was your whole argument that the appointment of a receiver company's role with respect to the corporation and whether it you know whether it lost all interest or whether it was truly you know a moot case it's just that it became very clear once of us operations that it was the fine taxpayer sixty three forty three to include not only individuals natural persons but the converse they could you could probably get a regulation that sa only corporations were eligible for economic hardship well again i think that the the reach of that provision depends on you have a defined term tax payer that includes corporations why don't you then have to interpret the word the word hardship or the two words economic hardship such that they reflect what that might mean as applied to the definition of tax payer and you've done just the opposite you've taken these undefined words put a definition on them and said oh well tax payer can't mean what it normally means now and it seems like you did the reverse and that seems a bit arbitrary well your honor our position is that you know obviously the code defines the term as a does the congress is nonetheless used that term in in different ways in different settings and even within sixty three forty three didn't use the term taxpayer to refer to only individuals without using the adjective individual taxpayer to limit it to sixty four thirty sixty three forty three he uses the term tax payer but it refers to the reason wages which can only be earn individuals well there are certainly definitions though economic hardship accepting that perhaps tax payer could have a different definition there's certainly definitions of economic hardship that might pertain or that you could reasonably make them pertain to a tax payer and those would have more to do with business viability and then individual freeing is some of mormon and motion or individual suffering that makes sense well as we laid out the pages forty five through fifty of our brief we i don't think that the meaning of economic hardship and big asli includes businesses and even the parties agree that hardship means suffering privation his discretion try to figure out a regulation that may apply to corporations and not individuals and i mean is that what you're saying yes yes well i think given that the term economic than the secretary does have that kind of discretion tell me a skeptic t individual and not individual taxpayers are suffering from appreciation of material wealth or resources when there isn't a levy in place that would make the most sense based on the way that the session is constructed the way taxpayers find in the code  that indicate what constitutes economic hardship for corporations are capable of doing so they've done it before with respect to offers and compromises chose not to use those temporary treasury regulations so i would assert that in this particular situation but the treasur regulation is simply an impermissible construction of the statute and it should be invalidated and the plain ordinary meaning of the term taxpayer should apply under section sixty three forty three one day