that the i r s is suing these cases in a sort of economic bullying manner and so i don't is to the extent and i realize you have before different grounds for so arguing but just focusing on where you began which was asserting that this is not an economic proposition as it would be collecting in that me that that that time in between and also i think the fact that they assessed interest on a period of time which couldn't possibly so for them to then keep money that they had a collected in the collection account shows that they didn't with the effort that it took from him in the amount of time that it took to for the ira's to figure out what that happened here is correct problem it would have been in everyone's interest if the earlier acted would have been in the iris is interest because they could have commenced a suit to recover the thirty thousand dollars that they mistakenly paid him and recovered it but because they did it the wrong because the ira's messed up they did it the wrong way but the statute of limitations for that right so is a result of that mr wilson has recovered a thousand dollar windfall it's eight thousand dollars he was never entitle frustration is understandable but what he's asking for is instead of an eight thousand dollar windfall of thirteen thousand dollars indeed he's not entitled to that and more importantly the t i think it's the tax court rule three three would be the status you know he says in which the commissioner mooted by basically building on that on the underlying question of those ancillary seventy two that be on page four seventy seven nineteen ninety what is this what is that holding open ordinarily in general it's going to move it exactly i thought it was these kind of these kind of ancillary issues and you're telling me now to my knowledge it is not  i'm not sure i didn't i don't know what you're referring to i'm not sure exactly what the court has in mind even when they say you know that they could be thinking of cases for example in this court case of buyers where one tax year became good because  entire case was not moved because there were a number of other reach the member of other tax years that were at issue so i wish i could be more helpful on that but i'm not sure what they're referring to right the attorneys fees would be moved that doesn't trouble you that there it's in the precisely to give people the incentive to bring it up and and fix the problem that but that's right and but it but that's true of all all prevailing party attorneys fees cases so that there there would be no claim for attorney's fees and so because we didn't have a motion of so for that issue never never came for it but happened there's no evidence of that i'm not aware of anything like that in the situation we had in this case was was very unusual nobody involved with the case and had seen something like this happen he would talk to me for that when they didn't even mention this  credit needed to be brought brought in a different form and there you are you having to gauge them to try to find out what was going on because frankly i couldn't understand what was going on in the first until two thousand and ten i had no notice of any of this until the collection and living up to so there was no way really to engage until i found out what  jurisdiction of the of the of the tax court in fact every time that they engage they want to take you for two thousand and six would not would be a non rebate running this refund which does not fall under the jurisdiction of the the t and the only reason we have jurisdiction of the tax form is because they that manufacture tax liability and and then  then we we went through the c d p process all the time i'm trying to tell them that there has to be sham problem here and they never wanted to engage