the court misinterpreted the time period before the words play much statute resides versus residing but let me go through what is your client my client lives primarily in switzerland not in the united states residence in you he owns a piece of property in new york but it's on right now we would take the position that he's not in for the it's uncontroverted than two thousand and fourteen two thousand five hundred he didn't spend a day in the united states the audit years of two thousand and five through two thousand and eleven the audit started in two thousand and twelve who own the fifth avenue cold he owns it with his wife and they only apartment but in the whole time they've been married the whole time they do not joint returns they are not together most of the time so in my client renounced his united states citizenship in one thousand nine hundred seventy seven you know when you renounce your citizenship you too and they have the absolute power to order but think about that there are constitutional limits because we can't what anyone is justified in produce documents our client has complied with the summons he's appeared he's testified he's invoked his fifth amendment to the extent that the fifth amendment was appropriate we will be looking for you we don't want to have to come back right i mean the irreparable harm is i mean the irises not say that one either he's complied and this is moot but that they won't say today but cintas and loved the agency didn't do what it was supposed to do i mean the summons requires service at the last and usual place of b she living i believe that you could take the position she's a resident there they have residences but they they have residences in new york long island but then outside the united states that's misess mr mellon makes a concerted effort not to be in the united states more than a certain number of days the statute says last and usual place of abode right and tax statutes and technical in nature so to the extent ask you more questions to go s and come back right and invent and that that has lots of consequences that's the irreparable harm right what it violates just because the number of days he spends in the united states would be relevant to now two thousand and seventeen taxation two thousand and sixteen taxation being forced to come from another country to come to the united states and answer questions as opposed to answering questions at the embassy in switzerland that's also hong there are collateral they might not let him leave once he comes back into the united states there's the potential for the whitney x e out republic that this is a civil case not a criminal case so if there are statutory ways so there is a ripple harm their knowledge of when he was last year was st the audit started is for the years two thousand and five to two thousand and eleven the audit started in twelve they serve the summons in fourteen and then they waited two years to ask the court to enforce the summons the for lack of a better first on the merits mr miller has not made a strong showing that he's likely to succeed in fact as the district court noted there was no justification none zero for the responses to flout the summonses and the handful of arguments that mr miller has raised before this court on the merits are not themselves with merit mr millen challenges the district court summary rather subject matter jurisdiction but the district are properly held that had subject managers to action pursuant to statutes one twenty united states which this is is well what's what's the likelihood you're going to ask for more questions or should forego your honor at this point the i r s is still reviewing that there's really no basis to do more than speculate about the chance of having avenue apartment and just very briefly that evidence includes mr mellon's own representations both to the public and to the revenue agent in this case including the power of attorney he signed and submitted to the revenue agent in this investigation stating the fifth avenue address was his address revenue agent to that address and indeed when the processor went to serve mr mellon there the doorman confirmed that mr mellon doesn't back live at that apartment and mr mellon and his papers assert that because he's a foreign national therefore he doesn't reside  may be found or maybe five or maybe fact that's right now and and for all of the reasons we've submitted in our papers we don't believe there's been any showing of harm here as mr jones attorney just you know conceded that the only real contention here about harm is that if there is some separate proceeding where the where the united states decides after a viewing the production for mr bell and there hasn't been full compliance if that were to eventually end up back in the district court and if the district court eventually reached an adverse ruling that there might be some consequences the government would submit at that point in that separate proceeding would be the time for mr mellon to appeal that order and request a stay at this point any hypothetical for seating would not be a