limitations contained in the statute this court has concluded that the a tax matter has not been contested unless there has been a petition filed in a court and the attempted to create an issue first impression by differentiating the difference between the amount of legality of a tax versus the reexamination partnership item are integral part of the debtors tax liability in fact the amounts of thirteen point one million dollars in difference in that are stacked liability so there's no support for the differentiation between partners and in this case such a valid tax liability as a partner of the partnership specifically in this case again the change in the partnership item made by the appeals officer resulted in an increase in the tax liability of thirteen point one million dollars that and we talked about normally filed in a tax court right in this case we had administrative proceedings but it was an informal tie i assume and then there was an appeal process which wasn't taken by any of the partners correct there right now what would have happened if they had taken appeal through that process then someone could have then appealed that decision to the tax court or the court of claims i know and that's all i'm trying to say so when we're talking when we talk about administrative tribunals you'd have to talk about what the fact that this was not administrative tribunal that you appeared before right it was not and  the united states concedes that in their brief they can see that this process of going through the iris appeals to vision is not meant to be included within this provision the bankruptcy it wasn't a contest there's no testimony there's no discovery it's just the administrative process that someone has to go through another in order to get to the next step of actually going to court but it's a little bit like arguing well you want to arbitration with all of the alternative resolution and there was a time in which to file a petition to challenge your arbitration decision or not and you didn't do that so why is not arbitration decision final wisely appeals a vision determination final somebody a new chance and when they start coming into effect and hitting each other we have five or five a correct the party go down the partnership items are going to come before the bankruptcy judge if they didn't come before the bankruptcy judge and if you could look out and then you could never determine the tax liability because all the items are line items that you used to compute the tax like they are going on and but but but it's all statutory and that's why you've got to look at it it where those two princip or the bankruptcy court and you're just arguing that whatever was said in five or five a a two we didn't have a final determination by a competent jurisdiction correct and again when i bankruptcy code and again i think it's pretty clear at least the arguments that we've made that the rights created by five a five a two the only limitations are the limitations contain there's no all these issues without conflicts within the statutes you're always going to have issues of conflict when you're dealing with the bankruptcy code because the banks gives you all these additional rights that you wouldn't otherwise have outside of bankruptcy and the teams are balanced that because the state doesn't apply to the other partners correct it so that leads to the extent that after one of the balance of all the partners are selling at the same time in the same numbers things continue growing because this bankruptcy is not going to stop that process right and  regulations that are cited by the united states and the brief are those very regulations where if a particular partner of a partnership filed bankruptcy then they will consider those partnership items non partner ship items in order to prevent the automatic  order to do that you have to look at the partnership fine you can't determine the tax liability without looking at all the issues already to take a lead in this case where the partnership items are the only issue it would be kind of sense please the court thomas clark and behalf of united states i'm going to question at the outset why did you move to withdraw the reference contested tax liability the bankruptcy court is not free to say well we're only going to click fifty dollars in your income because that way it will be more more left over to distribute to the other creditors and it's got to apply the federal law which is one hundred dollars goes into his income and i think same principle applies in this case that you have to look at the federal tax law pertaining to partnerships partnerships are not subject to federal income taxes what they do if they file information returns which they report the aggregate partnership's income loss and you doctrines and then each partner's distributive share of each of those items and then the applicable applicable federal law provides that these partnership items are to be  determined at the partnership level except as provided in that stuff chapter of taffeta it also provides that partners are required to report items on their return consistent with the partnerships return so the partnerships return governs so it will partnership reports on his return that the partner a distributed share the partnership income is two hundred dollars gorilla in the room and the grill is the bankruptcy code and whether we like it or not certain policies were developed when they put in the new code and it's got stays and banks don't like it's got all kinds of things in it that harass people and so once the bankruptcy court gets in and the rest of the partners who are not in bankruptcy are not affected by this it's the person who takes advantage of the bankruptcy code and then you then the bankruptcy code will determine under its auspices what the tax law should be but in doing so it's  what you're arguing i read your brief the point here is that that all works until you get the five zero five eight and somebody in congress in their bill it's decided this is what we're going to do when somebody files bankruptcy it's just the law is it's just like the tax code it doesn't make with the interpretation of five o five a when it talks about the adjudication by if you do still administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction you're saying that what was happening in this case was final because they didn't appeal it what are you saying particularly informative here excuse me section sixty two twenty nine states the general rule that an assessment against the partner for partnership items  that the limitations period for making that assessment shall not expire before a certain day three years after the partnership returns while as a general sixty two twenty nine subsection eight says if a partner files for bankruptcy that limitations period is extended ok so why is that significant it's significant because obviously when congress was writing these type of provisions it had in mind that these rules were writing here now while they might have facts abuse of tax shelter family track children we're not going to allow that the deductions and a good natured bankruptcy judge my if there is a different culture to see in a different way well not of partnership right i was must be determined at the partnership level congress took into consideration the effects that bankruptcy might have created one rule what one exception not the limitations period if a partner files for bankruptcy and there are and so if you start the playing field with respect to the terminations partnership items now well what do we do then with i mean i understand partnership items have to have religious context when you're talking about a partnership that except as set forth here in partnership items shall be determined the partnership level and then it goes on to explain how you can determine how you can challenge the partnership and partnership level and you know if you don't file the action within one hundred fifty partnership level well that may be so between the i r s and the taxpayer but the bankruptcy court has other interests in mind such as those of the creditor and isn't that the purpose the policy behind five a five day is to allow the creditors to bring an action to challenge a tax which was not challenging because the taxpayer in this case in florida was in such bad condition that ultimately had to go into bankruptcy well even a number of courts and even and you know when you when you have one statute saying that that partnership item shall be determined partnership level and there's no exception for bankruptcy even though when the statute or some other exceptions of bankruptcy but there's no  s district court or the court of federal claims period it did then through the congress somehow balance this all out by saying ok let's do this we've got a bankruptcy over here we've got the tax matters over here if that determination had gone t the tax court five zero five the two would have to recognize that the termination but it didn't go there so somebody was balancing this i mean it might be that different came in later but it clearly ties together if you had a tax court decision we would be here today well know not no he wouldn't be here today obvious right but we don't have a tax court decision because of the language of five o five a true and that i think that's i mean  congress specifically delegated to the treasury the authority to determine whether there are any special unfortunately areas in which that's the rules that apply and one special rule specifically noted by congress was that bankruptcy was this was a special enforcement area and there is a limit a rule granting some relief or bankruptcy which is that if you when a bankruptcy petition is filed the partnership items are converted to non partnership items except if a notice of final partnership and then a straight a judgment has been issued and nobody is timely filed a petition in court challenging it that's right and so the partner the partners who are not in bankruptcy will just partnership level proceeding at the very least there's an ambiguity there and understand frond and case such as the national cable and telecommunications association versus brand x that regulation has to given chevron deference well but there are even if even if we assume there is an ambiguity and we should go to that next step there isn't a regulation on point that address of the situation that says that central valley cannot some deference to administrative practice run some deference but again we're dealing with the bankruptcy code which we all recognize creature of it's own and these are rights that congress gave to debtors and so should add should the i r s appeals division which is just an i r s employee trial the bankruptcy code implemented by congress in this case and such a valid position would be on that it should mates the bankruptcy judge may say i'm taking chevron i think what they did is exactly right thing go same decision but the point is can you make that decision can be bankruptcy court make that decision that's our only issue is that right now our position is that th taxes the bankruptcy code will follow the tax law because that's the law that it will be determining the tax payers obligation sekret crap that something was missing and you didn't going to bankruptcy in order to get out from underneath the tax law don't know what the banks the judge will do here but that certainly i'm sure the i r s will come in as part of its position and argue the same positions that were made and have to argue from scratch they will be able to use the administrative determination of the people so that they gains and losses will have to be before the bankruptcy court just as they would be before the taxable tax court could turn around and say this is crazy this is not a tax shelter any court was going to look at it would do the same thing i suppose correct center thank you very much the central central valley ag enterprises versus united states who submitted for decision thank you very much for your useful arguments we truly did save the best for last we are not going to hear them until tomorrow