and rd the tax courts in accurate determination of these two factors infected its overall balance in conclusion which ultimately came out rotten for these reasons this court should reverse and request for relief turning st to the economic hardship factor there are three points that support the contention that does factor should favorably if before before you get into that counsel let me ask you  this she testified if she i don't believe she testified as to how much of the twenty six thousand dollars boat insurance proceeds are the sixty one thousand dollars some divorce settlement attempted to get a job working more hours and paying more money than the one she had a part time job just a few hours away did she your honor when does the taxpayer in this case we get her the job that on the stand she was being direct examined by attorney and she had the burden of showing economic hardship she not that's correct your honor she was that her and she voluntarily or  correct your honor and i believe that appellate in this case carried her burden to the extent that she was able given her job circumstances  trial i don't know that that i thought that she was able it's a time of trial to testify to the facts about how much of the want some divorce settlement she had left how much of the boat insurance proceeds she had left and about all the effort she had made to get a higher paying better hours job she had that opportunity and she didn't do it  you're under the record on economic hardship certainly are perhaps many other factors but you going on and on and who does that cut against if there's no evidence then the record on a particular issue are inadequate  point that your in your you don't know i'm not asking for points i'm asking you if one party has the burden and there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to determine that cut against the taxpayers case to the extent they're excess a bill for use against the liability at issue but even with the assets aside it's clear that taxpayers income supports a finding of economic hardship under the relevant federal a job for a few hours a week and does that automatically say well my income is less in a matter what this tax liability is it's an economic hardship your honor i think what's really important here is that the controlling revenue procedure  instructs that the tax code should pay special attention to the facts and circumstances of each case and while this tax payers job is only a part time i think the facts and circumstances that are important here is that it is the st time this taxpayer has worked in her adult life she la college degree and so at the time of trial this may have not been the best job possible to start making good on the liability at issue it is a start particularly for someone in her circumstances and it's against that backdrop that does enjoy substantial discretion in matters like this that discretion really must be bounded by certain guardrails and that's really where this leaf argues the tax court went wrong in this case so accepting that there was even some error in the determinations of economic hardship and knowledge it is logically it was logically necessary that those errors carried over into the tax court final balancing act and were compounded it means to knowledge but there are also a number of points why is this factor should favor relief as opposed to just favoring relief as the tax court found for instance the tax court incorrectly planed mislay for cooperation with dr balanced the factors it transported those mistakes from that individual factor determination into its ultimate balancing inquiry again compounding those mistakes a few examples of the ways in which the texts were aired when making this knowledge determinations it was the fact that the record demonstrate that ms leave admitted to a place that missed on the record he admitted on record that he would have lied to his  eighty four and currency in which we said that when a trial our court in that case a district court reaches a conclusion that under the law depends on certain facts on things in the court doesn't found that his testimony was a credible you're going to think even if you infer that the tax refund on that testimony was not credible there are enough question marks and red flags around the discrepancies in the record  economic hardship and knowledge to trust that those mistakes could have carried over to the ultimate balance even task and i think it's again that transportation and compound errors that really pushes this case over the line to an of discretion and i think you're correct it could be the case that some of the mistakes are errors that mostly argues for on the independent determinations of the economic hardship and knowledge factors may not be enough to cross that abuse of discretion threshold but combined with their impact in the ultimate balancing determination that's really when the tax court went beyond its discretion because those errors compromise the integrity of that balancing process and prevented the port from the fair balancing that she has to do under the control and new procedures and with all of care bouncin it's really impossible to evaluate whether the tax court followed the revenue procedure guidance that it purported to use than this case when relief and those are the sort of guardrails that this court should help provide to the tax court when it makes these counts and determinations it shouldn't be the case that the tax court can purport to use these controlling revenue procedure is but then do so incorrectly or with an incorrect or inappropriately determined a rate of factors that is something that should constrain the discretion of the tax court and the type of  conclusion that this court can make in order to provide just excuse me provide guidelines for the tax court when it makes these determinations you said at the beginning that this is all tax liability from her husband's income  that a factor you think for the tax courts if wade it's part of the facts and circumstances of this case your honor to mislead and her ex husband elected to file separately she would have had that doesn't mitigate that fact that she certainly appears enjoy the benefits of that income throughout those years your honor that as to any benefit the taxpayer enjoyed that's taken care this leaflet to ask this court to undo the tax court's exercise of discretion she wants to be treated differently from the vast majority of taxpayers who signed a chart with her on the basis of a big record in the case where she she knew that two of those through turns were late she knew that she and her husband had chronic underpayment problems at the payment at the time of filing and that's when the last several years before the year said a shoot up between seventy million ninety thousand dollars and she knew that for at least one of those years they had trouble pain such that they had to enter into an installment agreement they knew that at the time that they had had no luck selling their house and that was money tied up in the house that they could have used to pay the taxes at the time she also knew that her husband was painful to help hold a plane and a book on the time she had unrestricted access to at least two joint bank accounts and she could check balances for seem that they hadn't had a couple one hundred thousand dollars and followed up with her husband how were we going to pay these taxes and these were facts that prompted her to ask them questions different from the situation for example in the new york case from this court in which there was there were multiple instances of affirmatively lying they kept separate bank accounts and when the wife asked her husband about his finances he refused to tell her or the next of kids from the tax court where again separate finances and the husband instructed his accountant to specifically not how it's wife about his finances she also had three years of college although she didn't get a degree and in two thousand and thirteen her husband put her in charge of paying all the household bills that they were still apparently somewhat sharing and you don't put someone in charge of paying all the bills if you don't think that they can do it let's say if the if if the tax courts economic hardship determination was incorrect at me that it was an abuse of discretion or do the factor still way out such as the tax court's decision  factor as neutral and neil again near the end of that opinion the majority opinion of the test was court to say an incomplete picture of the taxpayer's expenses cuts against relate and left with our speculative arguments are the argument that she can't get a loan the argument that she can't read but there is nothing in the record we don't know and that and that is the specially true when it comes to real estate where you can husband up so that is between a one hundred thousand dollars to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars that we can no longer collect from him and felt this is also a disparaging fact from the wilson and even cases th in their brief in which the text hears apparently were paid for the houses they were allowed to keep while their husbands were not working at the time and the last point i want to make are those economic hardship currently a collectible until they get a job or their income increases it can decide to levy on her principal residence and that requires a core procedure i'm asleep herself can also  would be an administrative process and possibly a judicial process as well that is subject to your honor i think there are two points i'd like to start with st the burden issue and its interaction with the standard of review i think it's important to recognize that even if the independent determinations of the knowledge and economic hardship factors are not alone enough to justify a reversal under the standard of review the extent to which possible mistakes there could have affected the overall balancing process might be enough to justify a rematch and for a further here i think the reason why it remained could be justified is that any mistakes there are in the tax court to turn cat tax courts determination on those two independent factors that carried over and caused additional mistakes in the balancing act itself that balancing wasn't necessarily conducted based on the record we have with factors that were appropriately valued and so to the extent that the mistakes could have bled over i think that additional source of error and start to your point about the record your honor i do think that well it is an overall there are important points of crabbe aeration for instance between mr carlson the c p a and mr sleep's testimony and so that helps buttr