adjusted correctly you can hear me yes thank you the main issue in this case is a question of pure law when the mail date and the notice state do not match which one controls in this case  different because the revenue officer refused to follow a mandatory procedure to assure that the taxpayer my client received notice of the correct thirty day period of applying an undisclosed mail date when the taxpayer is g different notice status told to use that different you know estate goes against everything the statute sixty three thirty stands for the name of the hearing at issue is due process hearing fundamentally due to there's no notice if the taxpayer is given the wrong starting date the statute was enacted specifically to protect taxpayers rights and curb iris abuses on package that question i may have heard about it getting at is the statute and regulations are are written and typically construed to be more generous to the taxpayer to give them more time and intent that rather than less time but you want less time here days proof by law by regulations crystal clear you don't get a collection process hearing you get an equivalent hearing and the regulation requires this a requirement of the regulation that the i r s offer an equivalent hearing to a taxpayer who happens to request the hearing after thirty days in this case my client was never offered that that equivalent hearing the everest enough to fill the regulation so back to my point tell me a taxpayer that he has a particular thirty day window but then secretly unknowingly to the taxpayer playing a different thirty day window didn't your tech your tech gear sleeker that he wanted to correct yes a funny double negative he meant to be on time when they are were here because there is a no you're not on time yes so the idea that he was surprised only one date that would conceivably begin the thirty day period on the statute and that's the date written on the form itself the notice of levy form he never saw any other date he was never given any other day so if you have one and only one establish the date on which it was me one of two dates it was either or two dates possible yes on that point the statute is very crystal clear that you have a statute is crystal clear that it's what it that it's not the date that's on the notice of intent it's the date that he sent and there's evidence here that it was sent at a later date and so the clock starts running later date and typically that  is to the benefit that interpretation that approach in newark is to the benefit of the taxpayer because it gives him or her more time to restored nearly that would be true i disagree with the date part that is the ultimate issue to be  is some wrongdoing by the part of the government your client never saw the envelope because something happened at his household where he couldn't retain the let's pretend that he did see the end love what would he have seen i'm not a postmark to translate to me and mark into a possible mailing date i submit that's not simple that's not technical the statute was not fulfilled so whichever day you want to control you have to purge the statute give notice of that to the taxpayer in quote simple and non technical terms and statute does not answer the question of which state controls we all know that so we would look then to the regulations perform a chevron analysis to see if the regulations explain which date controls as br in detail and are briefs the regulations clear the word notices and down as in the phrase date of the notice or date on the notice it's a noun the date of the notice the date on the notice is the date that's on the i believe the statute is clear that a taxpayer has to be notified of the date the begins a thirty day period arguing over which proposition this is that the larger point i got a letter inside that has one day i got some instructions that are contradictory what am i supposed to do why is this difficult why can't the iris make this type why can't don't they don't they don't read things is carefully to know the difference between on and off certainly in an ideal world the date on the letter would match the date of mailing so that a taxpayer could even that first of all taxpayers are charged with knowledge of the law and there are a lot of cases out there involving different kinds of notices where the i r s simply walking through would i do that with this conflicting information in front of us and charge with the knowledge of the law but practically speaking what what do i do i think that if you're a taxpayer who really wants a collection due process hearing then you count out i think it's fair that they would probably look at the date on the letter they would probably count thirty days from that date and then if you really want to c d p hearing to protect your rights you make sure that you fill in the form and send it back to the i r s well before the thirty days has run that the where that when the question a question how do i know how much time i have to find out how much time i have when i've got these dueling dates in front of me well if you're the regulations and the materials provided the taxpayer say the date of the to do that for you there is only one notice that congress has required the i r s to put the last day for filing on that's a notice of deficiency and the internal revenue code requires the i r s to put the last day for filing on a notice of deficiency so record it may be the best practice of the i r s that may be something to consider as a best practices issue but there are also a lot of cases where the i r s even though not required by law listed date on a notice saying this is your last day to see s the person who calculates that date has sometimes gotten that wrong so then the taxpayer ends up with incorrect information that wasn't required to be provided by law and there's a slew of cases where taxpayers have filed by those states and courts have held that even though an individual i r s agent made in the state regarding the date that was gratuitously listed on this letter the statute controls whether or not the petition was timely it comes back to the operation of the statute no with them but prejudiced because most taxpayers they want a collection due process hearing they want the chance to they want to levy enjoins so that they're not going to get us the notice of levy on their bank account and what happened in this case gave the taxpayer more time made after thirty days then they get an administrative hearing called an equivalent hearing it doesn't come with the full statutory consequences of a c d p hearing but you have up to a year to request a quick one hearing and that's how an untimely request normally considered this is not a case where the i r s letter post dated the mailing so that the taxpayer thought the thirtieth day started after the day on which it actually begun this is a case where the thirty days began to run after the date on the letter it afforded taxpayer taxpayer here two more days to request a collection due process hearing he filed it the statue controls whether or not the request was in fact a statutory collection due process request and it was under the plain language of the statute i think this judge griffith pointed out sixty eight sixty three thirty eight two starts thirty day clock on the basis of one of three events when the notice is given in person which here are the i r s agent actually tried to do which is why the dates were different he printed the letter out on feb eleventh attempted to handle liver it and couldn't get down the taxpayer's driveway because of a dog the second thing that could start the clock is whether it's left at the dwelling place also something the i r s agent attempted to do on february eleventh or sent by certified or registered mail to the person's last known address and that is what he did there is no dispute that it was sent by certified or registered mail that's on page fifty five fifty six of the joint appendix hurt counsel but reference to the meter mail not being a true postmark but what the statute actually requires is that it sent by certified a registered mail and that's what happened here that happened on february thirteenth and that is the day the thirty day clock began to run taxpayers claim prejudice the taxpayers claim that he was prejudiced because he didn't get the opportunity to file an untimely request that would have stopped the limitations period and the government's response to that is that had he really wanted to file an untime request that would have stopped the limitations period then the government need to be on notice of that so that it could levy for his unpaid taxes before the limitations period expired so having sent in a hearing request that asked for a c d p hearing he can't be heard to complain that he actually got that and so the government for bore from collecting us taxes thank you how much time does it give you a minute unless i misheard counsel counsel said that if measured by the notice state my client's form one twenty five three was was on time was within the thirty days that's a mistake if measured by the no he was one day late now it's true that under the regulations the taxpayer has up to a year to request an equivalent hearing but the regulation doesn't say you must wait a year or eleven months or ten months or any period time the regulation clearly states that if you're one day late the i r s is supposed to without the taxpayer doing anything further offer the taxpayer an equivalent hearing you just have to be one day late per the regulations my client was one day late if measured by the notice state