in sixty fifteen you want is jurisdictional would mean the people seeking innocent spouse relief who are typically pro se would be powerless to challenge an i r s denial in tax court if the i r s misleads them into firing way that's right and it's a terrible result terrible terrible result but why isn't it required of the way we have read that close and you know the best argument you make is that the jurisdiction l clause refers only to coors and the additional clauses are instead things people have to do but no jurisdiction the problem is that in minor we held these additional clauses was in fact governed by the jurisdictional clause and i don't see any argument other than that is an awful result that says that some of these  jurisdictional because the solicitors nature of the scheme designed for veterans benefits and those same considerations apply here sixty fifteen is meant to provide relief to people who shouldn't be held responsible fo do you make of the ultimate jurisdictional paragraph it's the same part of the same section tax courts will have no jurisdiction under the sun program to enjoin any action proceeding almost entirely petitions been filed that sounds like a clear that this is not just about whether the government the reading of the statute is plausible it's about whether it's clear and the government's reading of the statute undermines the purpose of the statute which is to revive this was an area of was specifically set out by congress when it created sixty fifteen to provide equitable relief so if it's that's a relevant consideration under henderson vision seche and it's not just i'm looking at the the statute says that the tax court shall have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate relief available to the individual under this section if the petition is filed in that ninety day window and by enacting that language congress because you guys gave wrong advice is for anything you could have done too except use no your honor i don't think so because this is a jurisdictional role what's more it's clear her claim was barred by sixty fifteen g two which is fetch a prior decision of a court in which the taxpayer meaningfully participated is conclusive and cannot be overturned and there was a prior tax court proceeding involving the the i r s reached that conclusion your honor there is obviously the evidence on that point is not particularly good back to the language in the context of the statute so with sixty two thirteen as i understand it was amended at the same time as sixty fifteen which is the relevant statute in this case and that section so congress does amends and as language to both statutes simultaneously and that's statute says determination of the deficiency has been filed have siri has made much of this but take me through why it is that in sixty two thirteen the language is crystal clear as to  that generally under it wouldn't be the i r s can't bring collection actions with respect to the innocent spouse petition while a timely petition is pending in the tax court and won't be to does it gives the tax court the authority to enjoy jurisdictional paragraph it's exactly yes that's that's exactly right it is actually this statute that contains extra language the statute has more jurisdictional language than section sixty two thirteen not lots of the jurisdictional language when it says under this i rendered a different restriction ins paragraph and one jurisdiction of the question in myers who could file a petition and the statute says that in the case of an individual who elects to have the innocent spouse provisions they're tied to that grant by conditional language so yes that's that's exactly right and your honour's we acknowledge that jurisdictional time limits can and occasionally will have harsh effects we w but this is a statute in which congress made and expressly made it jurisdictional time limit and it did it twice over both in and the one b moreover there is a good reason for congress to make this time limit jurisdiction because this time limit not only tells the petition of the last day on which a petition can be filed in the tax court it also tells the i r s the first today on which you can begin collection actions and because it's jurisdictional the i r s can know that date more or less with certainty into court through the refund process for these reasons we respectfully request that you affirm the tax court's order of dismissal thank you very much is available to pay for it yes your honor but it's not just difficult for some people it's difficult for almost everyone that's going to request innocent spouse relief seventy two percent of people seeking a spouse relief or process and sixty five even though congress said it was jurisdictional that it couldn't be that congress meant to be so cold hearted about it congress did i understand your concern your honor but at the same time congress did set this very aside specifically for individual zink reserve decision