from the taxpayer and the i r s prepares a substitute return based upon what it has available well that's not the only difference is it i mean there has to be consent from the taxpayer to prepare a return and that is because congress and the supreme court rules of judicial interpretation tell us it's not a return because it was returned back to would not an amended twenty three a to include the hanging paragraph just again i don't think all returns are created equal and i don't think jackson in re jackson for example tells us that a document that the taxpayer is not does not provide the information the calculations doesn't perform those functions   repairing what is what we would call a traditional return jackson tells us that's not a return a definition while we use the word return and we're using that i get it at the word return shows up jackson tells us that document even though recalling a return is not a return because of the taxpayers not the party to prepare the tax calculations and tax liability and all of the information that goes into a traditional tax return well let me back you up one more step i thought maybe i'm misunderstanding this but i had thought in your brief you were taking the position that the information that the taxpayer business unit good turned over about the federal it just happens was a return not a six thousand and twenty a return but a return provides the information the f t v zoners those assessments on the nose proposed assessment itself they prepared that assessment based solely upon and this is their their basically their quote based solely upon the records mr sienna provided meaning the  sussman they didn't take any outside information so i don't need to be glib about this but the state basically is seemingly ungrateful in that they receive everything from well you know if they would have been kind of nice for mrs you know you actually file a return and allows when the taxpayer initiates a process i think really what it comes down to is the intent of the code and to me just charge should be granted when the taxpayer is the one who initiates the process when the debtor initiates the process because that's really the honest provided everything just like six thousand and twenty well that he did is he did not provide everything i mean come on what he provided was some information that was relevant to a correction of a federal return that is not remotely like a state tax return i mean i understand that there are some outs here and there are some conveniences the tax code the federal tax code into a much more limited extent i think the state tax code provided to suggest that the same thing is a return is several bridges too far contain all the information that would have been in a tax return it would have been it was all the information sufficient it's quote necessary for the perpetration there are it's not that it's actually prepared but it's necessary infor just quoting disclose all information necessary for the preparation there or it doesn't say you have to actually prepare the return because i know it and i understand that but my point is did he provide all the information that would be necessary to prepare a return as opposed to an assessment yes because the proposed no nos a proposal assessment actually details the income details that the tax exemption and details of tax liability details what is owed to everything that's on that as opposed to estimate is actually self proving that it was sufficient to prepare a return because it was able to parrot tax assessment based upon all the information so they had to have it sufficient information as if it was a return no the reason that the state doesn't vary turn in like the believe me the state would have would have sent him a return just like six thousand and twenty eight state law doesn't allow it state law doesn't allow the assessment to go final unless they give that notice so but if state law doesn't provide for the preparation of the return how is the state law similar to six thousand and twenty a which is keyed to the preparation of a return by the i r s again two things one is again with the taxpayer must provide is not the well again what's initially submitted is information a term of art and that term of art whatever whatever it is whatever the document is i don't know if there's a name other than that legal term of art but it's not a return as we call a return and jackson tells us why it is because the i r s prepares it not the taxpayer secretary shall make such return again the word return is used but it's not a return is under six thousand and twenty b from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise the key is under six hundred and twenty b oh not his own knowledge which is however that does not stop those taxpayers from filing their returns assessing taxes on them and otherwise combined with the law anyway another point i'd like to make is that the standard advanced by mrs yet simply permits a catch me if you can n admitted that he was required to required to file tax returns never filed those returns those returns are now at least twenty five years late and it was only after the i r s completed it say is that the reality is the information that was provided by this is only gave f u d a glimpse or a sliver into the larger tax picture that is when the iris makes a change or adjustment that can simply you file an absolute return the amount of the entire pack and the proper amount of that cannot be determined so yes it's to my it's my recollection from my time in practice that when situations like this arise that i think this is true of the i r s i'm not so sure about the have to be basically what they do is they make an assumption and they make the worst case assumption for the taxpayer with respect to michigan from a that is that roughly true yes there are some there is some assumption but it's not the complete picture and certainly the complete picture isn't verified under penalty of perjury but then your point is it's not the complete picture and but for the i r s being vigilant you would have known nothing information we have an exact match three yes it's not a return that they send a document for the taxpayer is fine but it's just a mechanism a conduit to number four which is to get the iras to have a legal susman so three out of the four requirements  is completely dissimilar to six thousand and twenty b because the s t b admits they did not rely upon their own information prepare this number to i'd like to just point out as a direct response to my colleagues arguments that most of those arguments frankly are tax arguments we're we're here at the bankruptcy court under the bankruptcy code which is to allow a fresh start it's not about paying your fair share because obviously in bankruptcy you're not paying at all that's the purpose of the bankruptcy so to argue that i think is is something on the tax side not on the bankruptcy side this catch me if you can argument or issue is really not a bankruptcy question that's more of a tax question meaning if the state felt mr c on a go it was was avoiding something or wasn't reporting everything they had the right to audit him they had a right to criminally prosecute him by submitting these tax documents and this information was done under penalty of perjury and had the state not believed it was accurate or believed that he wasn't reporting everything they had the right to audit him but again that's tax question the issue is all the debt that's listed in this bankruptcy one hundred percent of it results from exactly what rudy is providing if there's something the state leaves he didn't provide they have the right to audit it and it would be just charges bankruptcy if they want to make an assessment but  the code specifically brings in non bankruptcy law to determine what is a return right i mean it says in the hanging paragraph this defined an applicable not so there's not i don't think a clean distinction between the tax law and bankruptcy life anything tax law would prevail with respect to this question whether he complied to get a discharge of his tax debts yes but i do agree with that but again i think two things one is you way is you know we're supposed to basically read very narrowly exceptions to discharge a party objecting so to me the question is really not you know why is it dischargeable why is it not and again if we look at six is the reason is because the state requires the notice not to return that that's for the state purposes but the intent behind the issuance of another's opposes susman and the issuing of return is the exact same which is to get a legal tax assessment course thank you very much thank you madam court please call the next case