e supreme court the issue as to whether the tat the fees the marshal fees that we that are at issue in this case whether they were earned or whether we don't have jurisdiction to decide the question i don't know why we would ask somebody else but the answer to it is well there's a diversity of state opinion on that judge and right now that that very issue is a pending is pending in the appellate court we've got to tell the courts to hearing on it i'm expecting that we're going to be able to have that very issue taken up to the supreme court and i think it would make sense i would hope that this court on that issue of state law where there's a diversity of opinion on what this court would consider what the supreme bellaver supreme court of the of connecticut would do  ought to be a state or to be it's a state or a question or be settled in state decided in state court all the way well we can look at that in two factors we can look at it is it an issue that's precluded by the tax injunction actors or precluded by  well with respect to comedy as articulated by judge aronson questions of injunction on these matters come under the tax injunction act questions of damages come under the comedy act so my my answer is why i asked this court to look at is twofold first of all this is the one nine hundred eighty three action in which we're asking an injunction we're asking that town to stop this practice and which we think they're taking on during sheriff sheriff marshals freeze from taxpayers and giving them to the marshals so there's the injunction aspect with respect to the damages act our supreme court under the jade case we've asked this court to look at that jade case and we think the state court is very very clear that they will not consider a one nine hundred eighty three action and of any of these matters respecting the constitutionality of the taking and respect of the injunction will not be heard by a state court and therefore i don't think that comedy stops it from being heard by a federal court you have mentioned in your and you certainly argue in your papers that the fees are on earned that's correct but doesn't the statute read that once the warrant has been served there has been a fee earned effectively and that the word then tax is defined to include fees so when you put it together it seems as if the service of the warrant entitles fees which then becomes incorporated within the bucket of taxes  well let's address each one of those let's first of all address the warrant that we're talking about and then let's talk about whether those fees become taxes under federal law ok with respect to the warrant something that's sometimes not clear is the warrant that we're talking about is not issued to the taxpayer if you look at twelve one sixty two b the warrant is issued from the packed collector to the marshal it is a warrant to the marshal authorizing the marshal to go in execute and it gives the marshal under twelve one sixty four b it gives the marshal four different ways the marshal can execute them actually i'm thinking then of service of the warrant maybe i misspoke and talked about issuance of the warrant what i mean is isn't the service of the warrant the moment at which it becomes that the expense becomes incurred it depends which warrant that we're talking about the tax warrant that is issued to the marshal is issued only to the marshal it authorizes the marshal to take some other warrant and execute upon the property of the taxpayer and that's what wasn't done here they never they never executed a bot they just sent out the south a letter and even on the on the letter in them it clearly says in the warrant that we're talking about is go forward and there's four different ways that you can execute you can take their personal property you can take their bank account you can levy upon their real estate and the fourth one is you can garnish their wages and they didn't do any of that and  argument things be done without a warrant a pardon any of those things be done without a warrant just going to take somebody they cannot there has to be absolutely the warrant but i'm saying that it's a warrant that's right the warrant went to the marshal marshal never took exercise his authority under that warrant and took the property of the taxpayer that's what we want to be heard by the said but by the the supreme court that is the main issue which way it turns this whole case falls upon that i agree or on the whole case falls upon that if the priem court or through the appellate or the supreme court of connecticut says wait a minute all he's got to do is he doesn't have to he doesn't have to to execute upon the warrant all he's got to do is send out a letter and say listen i'm authorized to take your property and if you'll pay me i'm going to come and take that route you think that that's rather persuasive letter it's not just a miss if it's not a christmas card i'm authorized to seize your your promises and go to your cash register i can take your car don't you think that's a pretty effective well any kind of fact it was so effective you're right it was so effective that in each instance are is a matter if you take a look at the letter one of the letters says and if you don't pay by such and such a day we're going to levy on your property that letter was so effective they went to the tax collector and said we're going to pay we don't want to be executed upon he did not have to send out that letter and he could have gone in connecticut said that the only way there's a fifteen percent penalty imposed is that's not imposed simply by sending a letter out you get fifteen percent of the amount of money that is due if you go and you go and collect the money at the bank if you're a levy upon the real estate if you garnish the wages or you seize the personal property you can't just say hey wait a minute i've got thirty to take your money and then you sit back and let the tax collector cat collect the money by the way that's why this is not a tax because none of this money ever goes to the town even under twenty even if we take a look at i would invite the court's attention to page six where we where there municipality in there and it never goes in the general funds you know the tax collector never put it in general funds attack collector just took out fifteen percent of the payment well and gave it to the marshall another where they could have done right they could've just the legislature and the legislature did not allow them to simply willy nilly oppose a fifteen percent tax when a tax payment is one a day late but the legislature says if you're one day late on the thirty days you will be charged the town can charge you one and a half percent a month the chart the town can go and say oh ok fifteen let's get it at let's get it to marshall fifteen percent marshall just sends out a letter and so i have authority to take your money and now we suddenly earn fifteen percent of the taxpayer we're talking about millions and millions of dollars i'm confused you're confusing me i think you're saying that the that the marshall takes fifteen percent of the payment  other words are you saying that if there's one hundred dollars tax bill what does the what is the payment required from the tax i have to look at hundred dollars one hundred if you can you know i can't remember there's a twenty minute  percent fifteen percent you know i know it's fifteen percent let's say it's one hundred dollars just for if you forget the minimum what does the taxpayer have to pay one hundred fifteen dollars or  hundred dollars from which fifteen dollars going to fifteen your honor isn't that partly because the definition of tax includes the expenses in the moment that the warren issues the expenses are heard there are different types of expenses some expenses are incurred by the t for instance the town doesn't have to use a marshal and all of the town is a collection agency and then the town is obligated to the question agency in this instance the town isn't obligated a dime to the marshal the marshal supposed to collect the money and take their own fee collectors mr leblanc is the city's director of finance mr grew so the tax collector and then miss mrs mckay he's the deputy delinquent tax collector so they are all involved in the tax code collection a marshal to collect the in the same manner that they are allowed to collect when serving in an execution twelve one sixty six makes the marshall's fee or the part of the tax and the marshals fee for execution is governed by fifty two to sixty one of the general statutes there was an issue recently before this court in the coursera case where the court reserved the same questions that exist in this case to the connecticut supreme court to determine whether or not an execute a marshal who serves an execution but doesn't collect any money can still get a fifteen percent fee in the connecticut supreme court answered those questions for this court in january of this year we filed a supplemental let pointing that case out and on april thirteenth this court decided the corsair case were it adopting the principles laid out in the connecticut supreme court opinion on the or certified questions and it was held that yes marshall can get a fifteen percent fee even if the marshal doesn't collect the money and it was pointed out the that means that with judge jacob example you've got one hundred dollar tax bill to begin with if you get to the point where it's delinquent and sufficiently delinquent that there's a warrant and the warrant the marshals then take the warrant or whoever takes the warrant and goes and begins t process then that becomes one hundred fifteen dollars because the expense associate the fifteen percent fee becomes and part definition the part of the taxes exactly pursuant i so it's it's a it's a moving target effectively you only have the hundred dollar bill one hundred dollar a is that right well the t h c is designed to present prevent federal courts from issue an injunction that interfere with state and local tax collection purposes prefer instead to have the state courts address whether or not and here we would treat the fifteen percent as a tax i mean that's because under connecticut law use you've stated that what is it twelve one sixty six yes you know the other question i have is the adequacy of the state revenues i take it that it's not unlike the federal system if you object you pay the tax and then you can go into a tax court or part of a court of court dedicated taxes and get to try to get your get the issue resolved yes your honor connecticut general statutes twelve dash one twenty nine has a procedure where you can pay the tax file a protest in go through the procedures to adjudicate whether or not the tax was lawful or not a i'll be informed by your adversary if this is the case but do you see any limits ation on the ability of the taxpayer exception of attorneys fees but we know that there are cases out there that say the availability of attorneys is under federal fish if team provisions aren't enough to make the state remedies inadequate litigation when you look at the issues that the apollo is seeking to get to the catechize supreme court matt case there the same underlying issues that we have here it's an attack or a challenge on the  war system so that in and of itself tells me that the opponent things is an adequate remedy in the state court system and they want to pursue it in that o'brien versus kelly case  of the taxpayer ok that at that point the marshal has earned his fifteen percent i've got no problem that that's i think a fair reading of the law i have no problem on that it's not what we're talking about here there wasn't any execution and what happened  are several cases along that line in which the marshal executed upon a third party and then the taxpayers attorney attempted to circumvent that and pay directly and they said no the marshals earned his feet that's not the case here we hear this case why why should we do this i mean this is all a matter of state law we should be searching for every possible way to get back into state court should we because if there is a deprivation of my client's property under the u s constitution he has a right to come under   tilting it to that as a rule because i mean they can't if they have a statute that they believe violates the the constitution don't they have to take that into account i mean this is a state one would certainly hope so and i'm surprised that that's the holding in and there twelve one sixty six it says each installment there of due to due to the municipality and then it includes this none of these go to the miss a pallet they take the money and they give it to the good immediately to the marshall it doesn't go into the general fund of the municipality it doesn't go into public funds it's not like if they suddenly had it with that that they'd use a collection agent is that due to the municipality means that it has to actually yours well could go to the marshall before they got the money at that somehow doesn't count this judge i would i would hope that this court would consider due to the municipality mean exactly what it says it belongs to the municipality because it does conform with federal law that says that in order for it to be attacked it has to go into the general fund another state question to be decided but under the tax i believe under requests this court that under the tax injunction act it determines whether the tax injunction act consider considers that a tax and in order for it to go into a tax it has to be going into the into the general public funds thank you thank you very much for your consideration we will reserve decision the case of singh versus sessions he's taken on submission that's the last case on calendar please