at the time yes or all those are personal travel i think the government is there's some confusion about that yes ma'am well it i'm not sure that the time is relevant other than to show that we paid forty six thousand dollars prior to this particular check  on this particular check was dated january the th two thousand and fifty it was paid by the bank of franklin for approx me one hundred and forty nine thousand dollars and the remainder was mr anthony like at this particular time judge jones laird electric had been pretty well default for almost three years so the only way the government was going to get any money at all was through what we call the trust fund recovery penalty or what i used to refer to some responsible person and so that's what we were trying to do at the time we being my law firm in conjunction this to layard we could see that the company was in trouble that they were they had almost a four hundred thousand dollars tax liability another year just probably say well how does that happen well that happens with many businesses in that you know they don't pay well what happens judge is that they can't borrow money from the banks so they borrow money from their employees and from the federal government and that's what almost four hundred thousand dollars over this period of time before led electric finally shut down so during this period of time we were we being not a law firm in conjunction with mr laird major proximately forty six thousand dollars  were in fact applied as instructed they were applied to separate three separate orders for a total of forty six thousand dollars so we have no issue with that other than to point out to the court that we've instructed the i r s to do this say shell it doesn't say nay it says we will allocated in accordance with your instructions this is not an uncommon technique judge jones we do this all the time when we see when companies come to us and we see that they're in trouble and we know that because of the corporate shell creditors they are risk being one cannot get to those assets if there are no assets to get but they can't get to the principal owner or the responsible person so we sent month office sent on january the th two thousand and fifteen to the internal revenue service we enclosed for documents you know what you're going to get so down in the weeds on this you're not going to be able to argue anything please finding clothes you with check that number such and such for one hundred and forty nine thousand dollars to be allocated to the trust fund portion only of layered like then we have the two forms the forty one eighty's where we did the responsible person interview for mr laird and then for susan laird his wife but the point is both chad the check for one hundred and forty nine thousand dollars was written on his personal bank account just check and it was part of the record draw right and so in the letter transmittal overlooked that as well i think that's reason it's so important because it says on behalf of the reference taxpayer answer you larry i've been closer with the following official check number b the amount of one hundred and forty five thousand for the payment in full the trust fund portion only of lead electric company then it goes on with the two separate trust fund interims the reason that is important or honor is because you cannot have a trust on assessment or of responsible person assessment against an individual until you have in fact conducted the interview so misery been conducted the interview of both mr laird and his wife then the  document that was sent was form two thousand seven hundred and fifty one proposed assessment of trust fund recovered only if you look at judge windygates findings of fact he said well there was no assessment against mr layard and therefore there was no up to the point you only have seven minutes left over to see that the point is your honor is that we agreed to the assessment when we seen it in judge wingate said that we did not own january the th two thousand and fifty withheld from employees wages or to the amount of federal excise taxes collected from persons or members and which was not paid over to the government by the business named above named above his lawyer electric i waive the sixty day restriction  notice and demand under the internal revenue code section six thousand six hundred and seventy two that we agree to the assessment i think the government agrees with you on that well but you see judge but the judge did not i understand that but we why are you entitled to the refund because they noticed but hey they made a calculation error about the payments were made back in two thousand and six right just then and those were monies that have been paid by nine thousand dollars and the only reason there's an overpayment your honor is because of the miscalculation by the internal revenue service in fact they since the subs but notice in the way you overpaid almost fifty one thousand dollars and that's that's why we're here your honor two thousand to riff prop two thousand two hundred and twenty six says we can make a voluntary payment and it says that the i r s will apply that as we instruct now their argument is that under this statute sixty two  you self assess so if you're entitled to a refund you get it back in the us you have a tax lien or another tax liability they're entitled to keep it same thing with the one thousand and sixty dollars five's in the limit one is than twenty ss if there's enough because that's not you're not telling them how to allocate it here liar the electric was in default mr laird as the responsible person came in and said i'm going to use revenue procedure two thousand and two days twenty six own procedures judge jones they don't have the ability to put it that way a way i look at it it's arguably simpler than that just because the bank can't take the money from the person who didn't own the money  right so mr layard voluntarily assumed and paid some of the recruit well balon terribly has paid some of the responsible person thing and so when the calculation error was made with regard to that amount the person who paid the money to get the money back have syria and therefore sixty six it unless sixty two or four somehow says that the government can reallocate responsible person payments to the account of the company owner if you read two thousand and two days twenty six it makes no such weapons it well i know if you make the willful plain obey seen to be resourcing the that revenue ruling from sixty to four and we were trying to look at cases that might arguably support their position and we didn't find any that's not to say there aren't any is not going to pay i do offer some compromise that do not talk i do abatement requests the do not hope there is no difference here the fact is the government is losing i get that they're losing hand but we gave them have under the condition that they follow their own stupid routes i don't make them i just have to play bob i mean if all of a sudden st base became rd base and rd base that's the way we play baseball then right now two thousand and two that's twenty so i'll go ahead and finish and say i know that maybe you're hung up that he's getting money back and we're not applying it to the death of laird electic but that's what the deal was they told us you come in and pay the trust fund portion you tell us how to allocate it and that's how we'll do it and we did not make the mistake your honour's the i r s made a mistake so now what they're saying we made a mistake we gave you a figure of one is not has to need to recover any portion of the st sixty thousand dollars of payments because exhibits attaches pleadings so that it was the company mr those companies not mr laird that made those payments that made all such payments for which a refund suit would be tim would be personally liable for the arris apply that one hundred and forty five thousand dollars to those outstanding trust but the i r s miscalculated the amounts that were owed that's correct based on the allegations in the complain thousand and six to other quarters are payments that we respect all payments which are timely a payment that the company the company made the payments that were applied to cycle the company made all the payments the company rather didn't make all the several years by the time you know they were making these back payment in anticipation in anticipation any said credit goes to the trust fund liability i'm not sure entirely what he means by defunct there's that was but i thought he said that those payments were were made with the direction to offset the trust fund liability that scripture which he would be personally responsible but anyway ok so those four hundred and fifty four six thousand five hundred ok and it is in those payments or those quarterly liabilities that iris miscalculated you say that the company made the forty six thousand and five payment and it was offset company liability that the that that gives the iris the authority  my theory was that if these payments were made by laird individually that the i r s could not reallocate it what he paid individually to offset his overpayment and walk away getting into all the rest of these long extended argument it's just been wrapped around the axle factually it seems to me yes your honor it's a little complicated but still it's  been made layer by layer individually but it seems to me pretty darn clear from reading the documents in the transmittal letter that he was paying them individually i think that's probably a reasonable inference to draw up that's a real reasonable influence ye yes or no but you took issue with that in your brief so when you overplay things it makes one suspicious i apologize your honor we're trying to make this clear the record that isn't entirely clear just looking at the allegations in the complaint i apologize if we  was the company and so the i r s transferred the company's overpayment to other us in liabilities of the company we think that was an appropriate exercise of section sixty throaty and mr laird has said well that's true but the result of a mistake that's made by the taxpayer could be the result mistake that's made by the i r s it can be the result of a mistake that's made by both but whenever an overpayment exists as a matter of law section sixty four dollars or to any company regulation give the well sort of a gotcha but in a way joe it was decided in one thousand nine hundred and seventy if congress didn't like the way that that decision was rendered certainly in the intervening seventy years or so it could have overruled jones it could have written a statute to say well if the iris makes mistake that's no longer considered an overpayment that's no longer something that the iris can set off against other outstanding liabilities of the pay or it hasn't done so the statute remains in force any time there's an overpayment it can be applied in credited against other outstanding don't worry about the company's outstanding like bill these don't worry about who made this payment two thousand and fourteen i want the money personally notwithstanding the fact that the company still owes over two hundred thousand dollars in employment taxes the company there's a reason why the company didn't f it's because it knows that it would not receive a refund check well he knows that i mean he's responsible lawyer responsible person responsible moire whatever but yes is the person who paid the going gets to go back just a phone variation of the old line yes ma'am ok so their argument is that these three payments are forty six thousand five hundred more payments made by a company this and therefore if there was a miscalculation then it was the company and its liability that kicked in for offset under sixty four o two we'll just see also those payments are all made under the same criteria tips jones to allocate them only to the trust fund i understand that but i'm not sure they were also they were also that doesn't mean th  finance by mr laird individually or by laird electric i don't think there's any proof that you don't know you don't know them well don't you think that's one of the critical thing that mean that to be that sort of the critical thing but it's part of the critical then and it was at it doesn't matter to whom they ordered the allocation because the i r s having miscalculated can come back and say we're applying it to another liability of the company thousand and two test twenty six is their revenue procedure are and we followed it we did exactly what they told us to do and now they can't as that does judge to it so they can't just do a gotcha and that's because that's what they're doing by the way we messed up so therefore you pay this one hundred and forty five thousand dollars we just going to keep that plus everything else each each of those four payments are on the st three and the last one all had specific instructions as to how those payments were to be appl in fact it can only be allocated just on they can't put it anywhere else because they had specific instructions as to where to put the money they can't just say ok fine we've got an extra fifty one thousand dollars you told us how to allocate  said if you will pay the money and tell us how to allocate it we will allocate it like that the government doesn't have the option to allocate it any other way around regardless of sixty four  thousand dollars it turns out she only owes eight so she sometimes twenty thousand dollars refund but for five years before guess what you didn't do you can pay all the taxes news twenty thousand dollars a note there the government can take that any way they want to that is not cases at some point that there's nothing up there in our we've looked to reason we're here ok you guys are going to get to make some new law this is a sixty four o two overall two thousand and two that's twenty six if so you're creating a whole new body laird or not number three if there's a mistake doesn't make any difference i mean there are a lot of nuances you know bisa be there but at any bit of arguments helpful i think but  three payments it's all allocated to the trust and there's only so much trust on that side you're on it it can't be any any more and what the government is saying now is that since the trust fund numbers changed partly as a result one hundred and forty five thousand dollars