pending or an investigation ending we ought not accept this offer until the end of that investigation and there's another reference to a nd proceeding it's going on it does appear to me there's more in the record than simply this one documented about consideration of the offer whether or not they correctly turned it down or not is nice to force the issue is whether they considered it so why why is not evidence really right well i agree with you totally  that the question is whether or not they considered it is the issue not whether it was a good decision but i think if you look more closely at the record of what the long beach offered group did the only thing they did was look at this form and decide that anything further it's a little bit confusing if you're looking at the case history because the case history and these ages has some entries from fox and some entries from the person offer specialist that was actually looking form from fox in the file contacted fox and fox said yes i completed that form and these are the concerns and i have or have been that stop stop there for a nd so they had a discussion fox explained to him the concerns that she had and the offer in compromise was returned it may not have been the most mature consideration or deliberations like we expect from the supreme court but wasn't that at least evidence that the offer had been considered may have been turned down for the wrong reasons but it was considered wasn't no it wasn't it wasn't actually considered because what  did after he spoke to fox talked to his manager and the manager essentially said if fox is don't consider it then we won't consider and so i have a hard time finding how to be consideration when really the only thing that happened was a decision not to consider whether fox considering fox did not consider see if he was not in the chain that somebody looked at it and said we shouldn't grant this offer take this offer because there's a pending proceeding isn't that consideration no the only evidence of a handing prison proceeding was essentially this one page four that followed and there's a stipulation in this case that their work to get this proceeding was pending so there is evidence that there was a pending proceed well this is the exception that follows the rule because if the revenue officer whose actions are being appealed can keep open a case and therefore the appeal can never go forward then the collection and you've just written a selection process rules out of the c because that's that's easy and that's really the problem in this case is that the i r s basically let ochs veto the collection due process of this and put aside the merits of this case i just want to focus on the jurisdictional issue to understand you're required to put down a good faith deposit wrecked yes and let's assume that of as a result of the collection process proceedings the i r s determines that the taxpayer actually owes less than a good faith deposit well that's not this case so you don't have to go back and say that's not true here let's assume he makes the taxpayer puts out a good faith deposit and makes an offer in compromise twenty percent less than a good faith if you go through the proceedings and the i r s concludes he's right we only owes sixty thousand we made a put down eighty thousand there's he then have to sue to get the twenty back well let me  s administrative appeal says my god he's right he only has fifty thousand dollars we made him put down eighty thousand because that's the law now you can't hand you back the other thirty he has to go sue for well actually your honor might my answer would be that i think that the other thirty would be returned as a matter of course his his account would show and that year would show an overpayment if there were not amounts owed for other years that we that we need to be offset and i think that amount would be automatically refunded if that amount was not automatically refunded the time spirit could file a claim for a refund and that claims refund would almost certainly be in the unlikely event that both of those process these didn't result in the  has not been explicitly authorized due to order refunds and cd proceeds well it did and in this case to be fair that's why i said take yourself out of this case not the that the offer was rejected and so the question is when an offer rejected if it was appropriately rejected you hold on to the payment or the good faith deposit that's a different question than whether or not the court has jurisdiction to over the over that deposit if it makes othe this i think that i think that there's some argument here this is an unduly harsh result i think in terms of the offer there were very clear that that money would be retained so i don't think there was any sort of fraud but secondly there is an ability  to designated stocks and the floor has full payment rule only only only applies to each incremental tax year so you only have two full page and year in order  on you don't have to full pay all of the possible use of liability and in fact mr brown has designated his pay me to at least one of the two years at issue here he would have full paid at least one of the years and in two years an issue in this case are much smaller than all of his other tax liabilities we would not very much more money he probably couldn't hope a both years now it's not it seems to me seems to me what you're now addressing is whether on the merits he deserved to get this deposit back question i think all we can say on the jurisdictional question is that there is not been an explicit authorization when mr brown but before he made the eighty thousand dollars before he initiated this process was he given any notice that this offering compromise maybe wouldn't be accepted just based on some of these other open proceedings open investigations yes your honor in fact of appeals officer when informed that there was a discussion regarding in order to avoid the leaning unless they did have to go forward with his offer and compromise  i suppose i suppose you could have also paid off the amounts and we won't start until you take off your mute button our sorry ok i'd like to address a couple of the points that came up with the government this week st off the last  seventeen when this appeal was being but the fact is is that nothing is new mr brown has filed before in any way for him an ox from conducting an investigation it may have impaired her ability to do actual collection but if you don't weigh your ability to do an investigation so we have a situation where the investigation is going on for five years almost by the time that ms  when is making the determination in this and ms fox is still investigating and still basically blocking any other resolution to this and i might add that that status continues to this day she is still blocking it and she's still investigating it four years later so you know what is this what is this statute supposed to do the statute is supposed to give another part of the i r s and an authority to review nature of the proceedings what's going on is the opportunity to look at the manner in which the i r s is conducting collection right here this is not a nd this is not a nd bite at disputing the underlying tax liability not at all so what's so wrong with saying give me good faith deposit against your tax liability which is nonrefundable if you want to proceed on this in effect supplemental action and if it doesn't work you've paid off some of your taxes what's what's wrong with that well that's that's the real all there's nothing wrong with that but i didn't get the benefit of my bargain because they let office stop the investigation yeah but i guess is the benefit of your bargain you owed the money for your client owed the money he made a partial payment against it maybe maybe you know we can get back to whether or not they correctly went through the process but i don't understand other entitles you to your tax liability back that's i guess my question well i'm really not after the eighty thousand i want this offer in compromise accept it because they wrongfully refused to look at it and twenty four months is  and it is accepted by operation of the statute thank you i think both counsel in this case for their briefing your arguments nick case will be submitted thank you