my opponents in this matter claim the tax injunction act forbids my having my complaint that the government taxing a citizen for more than the such a simple says exceeds the taxation authority by that government in federal court and i do not believe that that was dismissed correctly by the lower court and for these reasons the tax seeks to bar preemptory challenges to taxes  and it leads citizens to pay the tax first and then argue about it later in court while the taxes in question here are largely retroactive going back to two thousand and six is that the city is seeking to readjust taxes that i've paid as much as eleven years ago secondly the plain and speedy remedy that the tax injunction act says must be available to me in order to bar the case from being heard in federal court is not in fact available to me there is an october twenty fourth deadline each and every one of those past eleven years by which a citizen has to file a suit in state court or lose their chance to be heard if i were to bring this matter to a state court it would be dismissed as being on  time next in direct marketing vs prole the supreme court in two thousand and fourteen ruled that the tax injunction act does not in fact cases that would merely seek assessment or collection of taxes but in fact remanded and reversed a tenth circuit decision by claiming that the tenth circuit by deciding that the ten circuit had overly broadly defined the word restrain as used in the t i a to supreme court and in a cocoon earning decision by justice ginsburg it was pointed out said restrain means to stop or nearly so not to merely inhibit my case it affects a portion of the tax paid by the home segment of the poorest new yorkers in other words a slice of a slice of a slice of the population it's so do minimum that it would harm the defendant in no way at all the city's budget is eighty billion dollars a year my case is nothing if not the very definition of what the supreme court meant by inhibit rather than to stop the collection of attacks and as far as assessment and levying  my case has nothing to do with stopping the city from doing that it merely seeks a remedy were some sort of a safety net would be put where citizens would not actually be taxed right out of their home i'm about to have my home unfairly seized because of the complete impossibility of meet to meet the demands by the city of new york with their bill just in the last forty eight hours the tax went up again it was a two hundred seventy percent increase now it's gone up another one hundred percent in the last forty eight hours i cannot meet this this demand by the city and i am going to have my house seized in violation of the fourth amendment the founding fathers made it clear in the constitution the sanctity that they gave to a person's home and the difficulty that they wanted the government to have in seizing a person's papers affects in this case i am going to lose my home my possessions and since i have a home office my livelihood and because the government assists me in the outrageously expensive medications that are necessary to keep me alive i will no longer be eligible for that should i be forced to rapidly sell my house so the any proceeds from the from the sale of the house will go to pharmaceutical companies so i'll be homeless jobless i have no possessions no house this to me exceeds the taxing authority of the good afternoon your honour's my name is joshua seven counsel for the new york city department of finance in the city of new york the very limited issue on this appeal is whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint in this action based injunction act the district court properly found that the tax injunction act may be invoked when two conditions are met one that the charges complained of constitute taxes and two that the state provides adequate state law remedies here there's no question that the property taxes that mr carnevale is complaining of constitute taxes within the meaning of the tax injunction act and both the second circuit and the united states supreme court have both found that new york provides adequate state law a remedy is that what about the point that mr kuttner valley made that vote or not available to him because serve to deprive him of that right is a general matter we certainly have failed in new york does it but what about the specific well i'll make two points with respect to that one i'd say that you can't let your remedies lapse and then complain that there are not well remedy course you can't let your remedies lapse if you had a way of claiming those remedies but if because of a mistake was made by the state and wiis were not charged at the time and if it is correct i don't know if it is correct that because of that the statute of limitations in new york would bar him from raising that then why isn't that  effect as a failure to make available any way that he can challenge it the first point to make is that the taxes that he's complaining of do not go back ten years at that just is not correct and there's nothing in the record saying that that is the case and the second point i'll make is that what arbet taxes he's complaining about the ones that are currently being assessed that's correct and as to both he can raise the thing this statute  not or at least if it's run it's his doing because he knew of it that's correct or honor and i guess the other point i'll make is that you are not saying that the statute of limitations was running against him despite his not having been assessed for those deficiencies i'm sorry under his repeat that you are not saying that the statute of limitations ran against him so that he was so that he is now is now at the time of instituting this action too late not was standing the taxes not having been assessed against him for the deficiency i'm not saying that here or you are saying that he has had plenty of time to bring the actions in state court he could have brought an action in state court immediately upon receiving a tax bill that he thought was improper and how much time did he have after receiving such a tax bill well for each year mr carnevale is correct that  can challenge your taxes yet you must challenge your property taxes by october twenty fourth of the year for other property taxes for that particular year however in this case mr carneval is seeking a declaration that the government may not impose taxes that are beyond his means and that is a declaration which he can certainly try and get in state court through a declaratory judgment action and i wouldn't think that there is a bar satchel impatiens bar in the other bar you're saying that one must bring the claim prior to october twenty fourth regardless of when an assessment is made against you by reason of a deficiency i mean if an assessment is made by reason of a deficiency on october twenty third that would leave you only a day or less to bring the action before october twenty fourth but the properties are assessed one a year and it's based upon that assessment that when is the property assess in relation to a job or twenty four my understanding it's not part of the record but my understanding is that it's at the beginning of the year that must be a document that whether it is part of a record or not we can take judicial notice of i would like to know when you're on to the point i'll make very is that mr carnevale is seeking a prospective ruling well he's seeking several things and he is pro se and so we misread what he is seeking broadly in so far as he is seeking something prospective i hear you but in so far as he's seeking something else i really would like to know how much time he had to raise his claims whatever  mean i mean is is the assessment of the property simply a document that says your property is assessed to have a value of x thousand dollars or is it a document that says you know so much in tax that you need to pay now it's a document that shows the assessed value of the property and it also indicates whether there are any exemptions that apply to the property but it doesn't tell you that you're required to pay a tax and it will state what the tax will be going forward for the year and yes i believe that it does indicate an amount that is owed as well but here let me be clear yes it says this is this is the time and you are going to have to pay by such and such a date so much is that what you say it is i believe that's the case your honor yes believe it that's what it says w want to know does it say you you must pay this tax so just such an amount in tax your honor i believe that there are two documents one which shows that the property value the amount of the assessment and are i will i will try and find that for you but make one other point before that mr carnevale is challenging the constitutionality of his of his taxes and there is an exception to this october twenty fourth deadline where you are challenging the constitutionality where you may bring a declaratory judgment action under c p l are section three thousand and one and you are not barred by the october twenty fourth deadline in order to bring  that action so here i would submit that despite the october twenty fourth deadline for challenging pursuant to an article seven proceeding under the real property tax law mr carnevale has a much seven perhaps you could help us by submitting by tomorrow afternoon the documents which you indicated you have access to and which in which judge how br since two thousand and six and when i first learned the city was going to revise what they wanted from me in real estate taxes going back mr stephen i believe is incorrect going back to two thousand and six and amount of eleven thousand dollars which is more than i happen to have the alternative to paying money which i do not have is the seizure of my home actually specifically they sell the right to a third party who can then sell ours out from under me i could not have met that october twenty fourth deadline each and every year for something that i did not learn about until two thousand and sixteen and yes the instant case does involve both a safety net for not just myself but people in my situation going forward but also for those retroactive taxes that the city first informed me about in two thousand and six i mean two thousand and sixteen and  am hoping to bring it to the federal courts because i do believe that it violates my federal constitutional rights to be taxed for more than i possess or suffer the loss of my home and my possessions constitutional right then under of a tax injunction you must do better and we can't help you not because we aren't interested in both right and as it was another jurisdiction can do it it isn't only federal courts that protect federal rights i understand your own thought may i ask a further question to mr sevan you said that for constitutional challenges there was a three year statute so  taking into account and he told ing that might be applicable because of the time when this challenge was being raised in the federal court is he still in time or is he still in time to raise these issues before a state court honor first of all i'm not certain about the three i don't want to misrepresent anything to the court but as i mentioned earlier the taggers among the three years is he in time can he still raise these issues in a state court he may six months to raise these issues in state court without being untimely again i'm not certain what the statute of limitations would be of of this give me a minimum i mean is can one say with confidence that he has two months in which he can still raise it in state use to bind you and this state if he raises of it in state court and the state then says over there is no statute of limitation you are making a statement before a court to the effect that he could raise it there and and i don't want to misrepresent anything to the court and as i previously said i'm not certain what the statute of limitations would be but i would believe that he would have time to raise these issues in state court whether they're valid is another issue that a number that i think we would have plenty other defensive towards my validity we're talking about timeliness can he can we count on the proposition that for two months from now he can raise those issues in the state court without the state claiming on time medicine without his having to to face an issue of whether he is  in that kind of spot but what we do want to get this information from you and perhaps in consultation with mr carlisle and indeed with your counterparts in the attorney general's office of the state if you can give us whatever you want to call it i mean really when i ask you to give us of the finot of legal judgment we're asking you to give us your understanding of what the limitations periods are and of course you can also say that the state will waive that statute of limitations for a certain period of time because the statute of limitations is wait a little if you choose to and not saying you have to but that is one way of resolving that issue now you represent the city of new york is that right that's correct you don't represent the state of new york that's correct thank you all right thank you both very much we'll reserve decision