may please accord the government determined in two thousand and eighteen that sergeant brady admitted over payment of taxes they didn't refund to starch and raid that overpayment micron ok so they waited five years to make the overpayment refunds overpayment twenty six u s c sixty six eleven provides that any overpayment bears twenty four six to twenty four two g provides there's thirty two kinds of cases that you can bring once once the government determines that you've got an overpayment it has the right hund that that debt is not old if there's two different ways to do it in order to get the overpayment the taxpayer needs to show that the debt against which it was offset does not exist so there's two ways they can do that first of all g and that says that that kind of case which is this case is not assume for a refund of tax now the way in which either him or her but that's proper weight what that means is that if you are trying to get back a kind of an overpayment where seventy four twenty two doesn't apply then you don't have to meet the seventy four twenty two requirements you  don't have a six year statute of limitations on you don't have a right to a jury trial and that's what this case is so all that all the sixty four o two g says is that this case is not a suit for refund of tax it's not have overpayment of tax and the government thought that he owed a debt and it applied the overpayment to the debt what the taxpayer needs to do in order to get his  overpayment is show that the debt to which it was applied doesn't exist there's two ways to do that if they apply it to a tax debt then you have to then you've got to sixty seven for twenty two procedures if they apply to a non tax that in general  then you have the the what abraham calls a suit to recover amount of the tax refund offset that this case so that the two kinds of cases both are trying to say that the overpayment was not properly properly offset a government says that if you recover your offset your overpayment that was  in a suit for refund tax then you get interest if you recover your overpayment offset in this kind of suit you don't get it that's making sense because in either case what you're trying to do is get the overpayment back you're saying that the debt to which your overpayment was applied is not doesn't exist and if it doesn't exist then the government has to pay you interest is that similar now the the district court said that debt to which you're overpaying was applied was one that requires that procedure if it's applied to a tax debt then you follow a different procedure if you're overpaying was plied to a non tax that you follow the procedures if there wasn't any debt to which you could apply that overpayment of tax the government said there is a debt but that that in fact did not exist it's it's a similar actually  founds doesn't hold that debt then you have to pay interest on the overpayment that was applied to the debt that's sense do what we've got here you take a debt had an overpayment you apply it to a debt that  doesn't exist you have to pay the interest on the overpayment it's really that that simple sixty four of two g is just designed as as ever he says procedures you had to follow if your overpayment was applied to a non tax debt what kind of procedure you have to file sixty sixty four to g makes it clear that you don't follow the seventy four twenty two procedures it's not a super refund impact but it's that doesn't mean that it's not a service to get that overpayment back overpayments applied to a debt all you have to do so you are you what's the jurisdiction well it isn't the it's case under thirteen forty six eight to another which is not a tax refund suit but is a suit against the government based on never ever question that this kind of that the court has jurisdiction to handle the the question of whether the debt exists there's never any question about the jurisdiction over that the question was when the court determines that that debt didn't exist is the recovery this over pain well paul what's the difference in whether they bring a whether they apply the overpayment to a tax debt and the tax that doesn't exist the government agrees you get interest on your pain if you apply it to a non tax debt and that non tax debt has to be a child support obligation the revenue ruling says you get interest but for some reason the government says here that if you apply that overpayment to a non tax debt owed by veteran that for some reason you don't get you don't get interest sixty four o two g has nothing to do with interest it has to do with what kind of lawsuit you're going to bring and whether you're bringing in general lawsuit against the government which has a six year sets of limitations so on says that the recovery doesn't earn interest will why would that be why would if you're going to say that when you apply that the overpayment to certain debts they don't earn interest why don't you put it in the interest statute rather than bury duce other thing interest so let's say they made the offset in july that would have had some interest they would have applied but when you make that oss that against a debt has nothing to do with how you prove the debt didn't exist and the interest starts in respect of an internal revenue tax that's not what this suit is for this suit is for an overpayment over collection of finance charges on the consumer debt has the complaint is even titled that way the the allegations in the complaint are not under attack supervision the allegation the complaint on the little tucker act for essentially a wrongful exaction theory that he had paid too much to the army air force credit the amount of the overpayment including interest allowed there on against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax that language also appears in the interest rate probation sixty six  benefit of his refund by the credit that went to the army air force exchange to pay his debt if he had paid the balance of his debt to the army air force exchange directly out of his own pocket he'd have no a title meant to interest at all and then the fact that it happened by virtue of this operation of the offset doesn't change that character in fact sixty four zero two d one the refers to the reduction in honor i think that then that's what the district court held below if if if you have had the operation of the offset and the secretary has paid a refund and deducted any amount the in this case m the benefit of that refund because he's reducing a debt that otherwise owed to the government i was allegedly at and by when they did come to light that there's an error we're now talking about an error in the computation of the finance charge in this case under a credit agreement which doesn't provide for any interest and the standard here on the munity sovereign immunity is the waiver must be express mr ray in his briefing doesn't even address writes well i think sixty four zero two i'm sorry the interest provision itself i think is problematic sixty six eleven a because it talks in terms of overpayment respective internal revenue tax and that's not what this i this scenario with respect to the overpayment of tax because it would be the overpayment issue here is not an overpayment tax what i was trying to say in the beginning you asked the question about did he make an overpayment a tax yes that's why there the this was improperly processed from the beginning in terms of the the secretary's work under the offset and also determining what net circuit has said that if a statute susceptible to a plausible reading under which sovereign immunity is not waived the statute fails to establish an unambiguous waiver and sovereign immunity remains intact and these are plausible readings of these these provisions i actually think that the clearest reading rather tend to go to this constrain interpretation that somehow the payment of a debt and a suit to a refund on a debt to a federal agency for  overcomer you have a remedy yes but you can't and you can imply the remedy by moving over to offset and saying that a claim in an overpayment on a consumer finance debt comes well actually that there was a debt there because the where amount we're talking about is merely the adjustment for the interest charge he had owed principal debt to army air force exchange so the matter refund reflects the well if that were true then the underlying principle that was satisfied by the offset would be subject to interest because he's not been refunded the underlying principle that was paid with the remainder of the money that was offset and directed to him i think that the fact that there was an error in the calculation of the finance charge and then it would later be funded doesn't somehow bring it back into the context of a tax claim it becomes and the structure  about there's no really no tax issue is not a super tax refunds and i do say that at the end it comes circle back to your original question about sixty four o two g sixty four o two g makes that clear it is  an issue of a suit for a tax refund the sixty six eleven doesn't come even come into apply and there's a there's a good logic behind that because he's the person who's recent who's had an offset taken as reduced offsets there could have been a provision in a static like that that was clear and expressed that meets the standard you know i don't think anybody's tried to make this argument before your own i'm not aware of any and this is not every speck that it has practical consequences because the agencies to get receipts post the offsets they don't receive information about where the object came from the object could come from some other federal payment that's due you would know where they are if this interest rule applies you would know the agencies would know whether they owed interest back or not because you would know the character the offset that makes a difference in the way the agencies would operate in terms if you were to dot claims argument that the tax information if their tax  withheld and then paid out and applied to a non tax decks or the offset program the agency would know whether it owed interest or not because it could have been a different type of federal benefit the treasury some government taxes of some other character that turned out later to be in error i mean people who were affected by any kind of finance charge error and then later get a refund but are paying the army air force exchange directly they don't get interested the same five year withholding period the same impact on them this is really bootstrapping the fact that the money originally came out of the tax refund to this provision applies in the case when the money takes on the character of finance over charge or any other kind of satisfaction a debt education loan whatever if there's an error in this argument before before came to this court they never presented it anywhere including to the district court now they're saying it doesn't matter whether the offset existed or not you can take the million saying is that if the debt to which they apply it does not exist it's still and they wait five years to pay back that overpayment they don't have to pay interest in other words if you apply an over government didn't pay in the overpayment what they're saying is that overpayment which does bear interest should be the same as if the taxpayer just pays the government money out of its pockets and  that such is the one of the illegal seizure there's no interest provision on that kind of overpaying but if you have a tax overpayment that exists here there's no question the taxable repayment exist