and i do want to remind both counsel that you do have two minutes at the beginning of your argument which will be uninterrupted and after those two minutes i done you should expect be prepared for questions from the court with that circuit explain that it is most naturally identified by the subject matter of the appeal for section six thousand three hundred and thirty one dollars that subject matters in the prior subsection subsection c addresses matters considered going to the administrative process that process results in a notice of determination court system or no reasonable access some examples of the tap situation may include imprison taxpayers who had no idea that their cup was running at all taxpayers who the government told around filing deadline to including by formal letter and tax court is  to hear a little bit more from you about how we could really classify that is true that that we would not have to follow here in this case this time here and i think that the key language there is actually the hold which was better jurisdiction was taken away by a supplemental notice so the panelist hat was tasked with addressing that question and not specific to the filing deadline and the thing is that this is a pretty complex technical issue we know for example that several absolutely clear if it's at all ambiguous that such matter is referring to both the notice of determination the subject matter and the filing deadline then this quick to say that there is not a clear statement because as minors points out the supreme court has been fully convinced that such matter means one thing or another you just need to not be fully convinced that such matter is specific to the filing deadline and i think that because we know that congress particularly with regard to tax statutes has described them differently when it collection process set up here is not what it what you would decide that jurisdiction and that the other one presumption had been rebutted i would turn your attention to henderson which talked about whether the provision was set up to be unusually protective i think the provision here was because i noticed that as we discussed you had an administrative hearing followed by a right to petition the tax court if the administrative hearing does not go in the taxpayer's lever which means that the taxpayer is guaranteed two bites at the apple taking money away from the taxpayer and so in this case we want to make sure that the taps here are eager to have access to what should be there for them and remember that holding the stepsisters fictional or denying ethical toeing here would be very high and days but because of the male model is that were pretty frequent in north dakota at that time she believes that there are reasons that the tax court might consider equitable tolling to be appropriate and this instance even if a delay in the mail is not usually a reason for apple's holding  that's where the postal service report was included in the record ok so are you representing that there would be additional evidence that your client would want to interviews at the tax quarter on the equitable tolling representing that the record is a complete on that and i think if she were given the opportunity to go back before the tax court she might provide additional evidence about delays in the mail in order to quit at that time this badly we're prepared to hear your argument i apologize for the technical difficulty your honor may have played the court and bradley for the commissioner of internal revenue action the time limit in that provision it's jurisdictional and subsequent to the supreme court could statement the court could continue to hope that that time limit is jurisdiction we would jurisdiction on the cat court only if a petition is filed within thirty days of the determination and that if the by did panel of the d c circuit and miers held at the time were met for filing a again apply the clear statement well and the th circuit rejected the exact same argument of the tax here and the amicus being made here the clerk hell that the you for such cases is generally kept to the d c circuit so calm obviously isn't bound by it and those whistleblower cases would you know come back again to the d t friendly so with it's kind of a wholly different game here and we we strongly believe that the th circuit again was presented with little or virtually identical to reveal and that are all three of those things are jurisdiction some other words there's three things that and how do we know that jurisdiction over such spatter actually refers to all three of them to address fact that were an issue poor i believe it was the two thousand and eight year could hardly pay the tax and two for a refund but here again with respect to the prepayment and there are the nd rd and th circuit and when presented with virtually the identical argument by half payers and by the amicus here that there are the language was sorry three minute warning but i'm sorry i don't have it on my brain so the government is strongly at the position that the time limit here is clearly stated as being a it passes the muster under the supreme court clear statement cat here and because the government argues that the time limit is jurisdictional there is no need to reach  the whether or the period is subject to equitable tolling which we would submit it can get given the subject matter how long and given obvious administrative to either one involved unrelated timing issues or two are all about whether and do this that determination was necessary which but i don't know if that determination it's not clear what the court was or if you so i think the important thing to remember here  ruling by legislative history that's a little bit us as well is not enough to change the ambiguity and make a clear statement thank you thank you thank you to both counsel i will take the matter under advisement and issue an opinion and do course