a percent of social security one person has no other source of income why not bring a claim under eighty nine dollars i don't understand you to be pursuing that if he's truly penniless why not bring the claim under a nine because i believe that it's a good the problem here is it's a continuous love me one hundred percent of social security and six thousand three hundred and thirty i'm sorry if i'm wrong you can correct me but i thought even if it's a continuous levy and thirty one dollars h is fifteen percent but if you seek the levy that they're seeking here it's one hundred percent but you get the offset correct i'm not sure if i'm following the question if you get it so the way i understand it there's an a an age maybe in the h is the fifteen per cent the one you say should write off the a you get one hundred percent you get it depends if you have the ace as its income has a certain series of numbers your standard deduction in your exemption and if you're over sixty five dollars extra money so the problem here is that it's a continuous alabi which i believe is illegal because so security is not an well the number one relief would be in the stahmann agreement that's what the number one choice would be an installment agreement with the internal revenue service if you have an installment agreement then they don't levy saw i attempted to get an installment agreement wasn't able to contact or the taxpayer advocate's office where you go when you don't have any remedies to experian because office said and this is in the complaint taxpayers office so we won't touch it if the justice department is involved just department have the case so i couldn't get anything with the internal revenue service so the question is the government is maintaining a continuous levy of one hundred percent i believe the continuous levy is not authorized by the law section there's nothing in section a that says you're precluded from seeking it under a i'm a little confused by the statement of one hundred percent there's no rule that says they can't take they can take one hundred percent of so security if you have another source of  income is that exam which or when you say one hundred percent and i mean they can take your essential claim as they're taking all the social security now when he doesn't have another source of income right but you haven't proven that he doesn't have another source of income right doesn't you could seek an example in under a guy in my wrong about that i could seek an exemption under a nine if i had somebody in the government that would process the exam but the real problem is they're taking because they have to get somebody in the government to recognize that you haven't sought that right if you haven't sought it you can't get them to recognize that some of you have to go to them and say hey he's penniless things and i don't claim to be its headsets but having no other source of income relates to section eight not to section eight a no that's correct ok so if your claim here and i understand that your major claim here is to say you can't do this and you have to go under eight rock so when they started doing this under a and taking all of it why didn't he start in that that said hey you can't do this under you have to go and your agent are limited to fifteen percent i don't know why you didn't start an accident earlier him a nother and of court remedy provided by congress what is the if the government is today to take the seven thousand four hundred and forty three remedy is that the talking about the reagan exception south carolina b reagan yes  the damage action isn't going to stop the government from the continuous levee and one hundred percent loss my client isn't going to get damages because he's he's always the government twenty million  according to the government is that the st time the government issues a nurse to lobby for a particular year you get a let's call the collection due process notice you have thirty days to file something now let's say that at the one hundred percent levy is never proper on social security and response to judge white i thought that's what you said when you don't have another source of income the exemption let's say is eighteen thousand going ok wait a minute i thought the argument is that social security continuing payments that's to be under such age continuing that right and it doesn't matter how much money correct the a i maybe i misunderstood your question as to why we didn't do something earlier i don't know why my client didn't do something earlier and should have done something earlier but then but are you saying no judge white asked and i thought you said the government can never proceed under against social security benefits i assume you're arguing that because they're in your mind they're not fixed in determining on a continuous l and thirty four d which is the exemption section and i'm saying that's problematic because they couldn't possibly have under that section which says they have to give a certain example because the regulations say if you have all their income which is greater than the exemption they cannot take on a percent of social security unless you have another source of income that's illegal ok so what what is the procedure i mean you you work in this field what is the procedure for someone who has exhausted all their other assets in terms of fighting i saw a levy on there so six hundred percent of the show security yes they've lived with a one hundred percent levy they didn't challenge it because they had other assets that other income yes other income and now they don't how does one go to the i r s and say my circumstances have changed i am now entitle to this exception went to them to judge them point i'm dealing with the justice department which is prior to the amount of time that matters and them point i'm dealing with the justice department who knows that edward hound doesn't have other income i'm attempting to get in a strong and agree with them they're telling me no i then turned to the to the taxpayer advocate and i stand having trouble i can't give an installment agreement with the justice for so they know the government no no it is there are procedures or is there a petition is there proper when it's issued and then subsequently it's no longer valid there's no procedure there's no procedure to get them to change it except there's no there's no official i mean you could call them on the phone which is the one i dead but there's no other procedure to get them to two years of damages because you can only file it two years after the notice of levy so after that two year period expires you can't do anything with the damage wait a nd you're saying that if you go to the tax court you start to damage at sea and then the outcome is that yes what the take for it doesn't have jurisdiction over the the damages of case court is limited jurisdiction the typical jurisdiction comes get a judgment that says that you're entitled to the exemption so you're saying that that doesn't i don't know many operate in the future then doesn't operate in the future but i don't know of any provision of the law that says that i  to a district court and get a judgment that the government is not complying with the exemptions and there isn't any provision for them if i'm past if i could argue it in the damage case if i'm within two years of the levy because it's a two year statute of limitations but there's no provision that i know of where i can sue and say the government's not following the example in provisions i could and date with the collection due process hearing if on the date they issued that howland qualified for the exemption i could do that if but i'm assuming that how and had other income maybe you could pick up where we left off what the taxpayer who had been subject to one hundred percent levy did not feel that at that time he or she was that i think that's the correct question to ask which is if the taxpayer at the time which appears to be the case here was not until to an exemption because he had other sources of income when the circumstances change the onus is on the taxpayer to come into the i r s and submitted verified statement of entitlement to an exemption to file this administrative request to recognize the exemption based on the change in circumstance that the regulations put the onus on the taxpayer as the th circuit is set in milton and emission primary how do they do that because it seems like your friend  acting contrary to law by not recognizing the exemption to which i am you agree that that's the only legal remedy they have correct that's the only judicial remedy to challenge that in this statute begins to run when the exemption when they qualify for the exemption that's correct it would run from whenever the iris is allegedly violating either an internal code internal revenue code provision or a treasury regulation so whenever the violation occurs whenever the taxpayer becomes entitle to an and thirty three dash one e e which rising tax here can see both past damages already incurred as well as future prospected damages that are readily foreseeable so you can see both backward looking and forward looking prevails and article three courts says this is illegal unauthorized and maybe i r s just thumbs its nose at that court ruling and says we're going to leave this unauthorized unlawful lobby in place i would have two responses to that the st of which we think that's highly unlikely that what would likely happen in that scenario is that apartment justice would direct the i r s to release the levy we think the i r s would do so but even if the ara's just dumbass knows the court said we're not going to follow this we're going to proceed in continuing forcing this on authorized levy we still think that mister holland would be in a much better position and a substantially different legal footing if you pursued that remedy and the reason is because at that point we think that he could satisfy the williams packing exception to the eighteen junction act he could come into court and say adequate remedy the thing that i'm standing up here today and saying is an adequate remedy is a damages suit if the ira says we're just going to ignore the district court ruling saying that this was an unauthorized collection action were to proceed in continue to enforce it that argument goes out the window at that is that something he could have needed to levy continues in the future is is there any place he can litigate that we don't think that he can timely litigate this issue of whether it's one hundred percent versus fifteen percent because that seven he could file a suit for damages if the i r s denied his request for economic hardship as the taxpayers did in the case that he could say i'm entitled to a hardship release as a matter of law this levy is causing me to be unable to meet my basic living remedy such as south carolina is that why right and to to seek it out or a it has to be fixed interminable right that's correct your honor why if congress can later cut it off is it fixed indetermina because congress could cut it off well with the goal the discourse single forever is just the fact that the payment is subject to potential the fees and does not mean that it's not fixed and determinable but that was right go forever was contracts right abrogate that right oh that wasn't certainly a levy case it wasn't turning with the rights interminable that being said we don't think that the possibility of an act of congress abrogating a right is the kind of heaven which was subsequently followed by the th circuit and ralph was dealing with it in ministry of expense that was subject to three separate contingencies there had to be sufficient funds in the bankruptcy estate to pay it had to be approved by the bankruptcy court and the trustee had to not move to disallow it nonetheless that was still determined to be a fixed and interminable obligation and why it is so what i think a fixed indeterminable and i recognize this might not be consistent would go forever and i'm biased by that but why isn't here it different in that you have to live the next month before you can pay it so it's different than a contract that in theory would pay you or your estate social security doesn't work that way right we think that the proper way to view this is the way that the bankruptcy court in wessels to say that the taxpayer is debt is a condition condition subsequent that terminates the right not a condition precedent that gives rise to the right that taxpayers you won't get the money it seems to me isn't it a condition precedent like you have to live to call act well it doesn't make this any different than the cases involving a levy on the continent taxpayers rights receive pension benefits or annuity payments or disability insurance benefits all of which have held to be fixed section a was sufficient to reach the teacher stream of the new of the payments and so i'm sorry i'm talking about it is my poor question so i apologise i'm talking about social security payments you know circuit court has held their fixed determinable that's correct the  that the government has a colorable position to that effect such that it's not certain that the government could ultimately prevail but nope circuit court has reached the merits of that decision that's all we need to find for the anti injunction act to block that's correct that the taxpayer hassidim interest rate not merely that they might  of this money to do what he wanted to request a release from the levy based on economic hardship he could summon the application to the i r s today and do that and then finally the theory that he's that he did play to his complaint which is that the levees limited to fifteen percent as a matter of law he also had administrative remedies that were available to him at a minimum he could have pursued a collection appeals process hearing he could have submitted it in this way to claim for damages and then brought suit under section seven thousand four hundred and thirty three you just lost me on the those other avenues of relief we think that he's precluded from proceeding under mandamus at this point you i'm going to address the verified statement and how that works and what it does and what it doesn't do i believe that the government's position that there was a remedy for mr howland is incorrect and i think it's important to look at the regulation levy on income they should tell the person that they're living at the time that they serve the lab levy whether the particular taxpayer has another source of income and if they don't do that the recipient of the is supposed to assume that the person does not have another source of income so basically what the regulation says is when the government serves the levy tell the person if the taxpayer has another source of income so that they can send one hundred percent of whatever it is and that means that at the time they service or security levy they would have had to have said to the so security administration mr howland has at least one million seven hundred and eighteen thousand dollars of other income now the verified statement that the government has indicated as a solution for mr holland does not address that issue all that does is that the presumption is when you figure out the exemption is in the statute is that a person is married filing single say i don't have one exemption i have more than one exemption i'm not married filing separate i married filing joint that's all the verified statement does it does not say that or down senator verified statement today it would have no effect on says to the so security administration mr holland has at least eighteen thousand dollars or whatever the number is of all there in whatever the number was in two thousand and twelve it's a smaller number so if you imagine an individual say it's a woman who's sixty five years old and has getting so security and works gets the levy it's proper because she has other income two years later she retires from work and the government continues to take one hundred percent or so security she would have no remedy because the two years has gone by and there's nothing she can do about that the statute would bar her from filing a claim according to the government there's no way she can appeal she can apply to the government but whether whether the government does anything i mean in this case the government's well aware that mr holland has no other income and it's still insisting that it should be allowed to take one hundred percent of the so security i'm not sure what more they would want in order for them to stop taking one hundred percent of associa alternate remedy that's that's available that's clear and precise and addresses the issue seven thousand four hundred and thirty three has nothing to do with whether the government can continue to levy at one hundred percent levels and so security all it does is give them damages within two years and then some foreseeable damages but it doesn't get it get a good mr hallinan order that says you cannot take one hundred percent was so security under you know when he has no other source of income now the question of not of an asset their every payment is subject to a condition that he lives in the following month i see that i've run out of time i am going to suggest that is is there any way some there were some conversations we have had some conversations just between the parties in terms of potential resolution and we have spoken to mr mcfaul in the mediation office he hasn't been formally involve but we have had some discussions about potentially trying to resolve some of these issues without i don't know if i'm violating any of the you know the the negotiation to carry people we've reached into the problem is in contacted me to try to so i have two cases that are coming in the six circuit know one another case that the problem is and have it's in the district court about potential resolution of this case i don't want to get into a specific of the question is would it do any good would there be some new over in room here such that if the mediation office were formally involved here