and presenting the court primarily with the jurisdictional issue and an appeal that stresses the importance of how to approach jurisdictional issues because the core error of the of the legal way that is being reviewed is whether or not the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to deny and disallow proof a claim that the internal revenue service filed in the debtor's thank receive case and both lower courts this being  bankruptcy case the bankruptcy court st decides the issue and then it gets appealed and this is now the court sitting nd level of review both lower courts decided that the wasn't jurisdiction and both lower courts util widest a procedural rule to make that determination and i want to stress the importance here because i didn't have the opportunity  to the courts below that starting with the rules is the wrong place to start the key question on this appeal is what is the jurisdictional significance of the internal revenue service filing a claim and it's my client's position that is supported by no less than four supreme court cases that have been decided over the course of the last seven decades that when a creditor files a proof of claim  to the court's jurisdiction at least with respect to that claim and so when the court either pays or reduces or later denies that claim whether on objection by the debtor or someone else or on its own the bankruptcy court has the jurisdiction to take that action and the order that it enters is not void and is not subject to later be vacated under rule sixty four which is what the bankruptcy court did here and i think the case and really the point where the lower courts went wrong is the argument that the i r s presented knighted states excuse me that be looking at that generally applicable principle can stand by itself but it's not material for this appeal does it not going does it affect this case that generally in bankruptcy all kinds of claims are filed even in a small case and they're presumed ok they're presumed granted then we'll look at anything i mean it's the ultimate routine processing and that seems like an odd  seven almost no assets case there may be i don't know any number of just trust me any number of limbs due to bankruptcy practice i do i do your you know to that i'm not way off the mark and they're presumed the law says that they are presumed they're there to do jurisdictional significance is when you ask the court for relief which is fundamentally what's happening when a creditor files a proof of claim it doesn't matter if there's one creditor a one thousand creditors in a case they are all going to the bankruptcy court and they're all individually rather than filing the claims across the nation and district and state court they're all calling coming to one form and they're telling the court i have a claim against the debtor has a state pa presumed valid and you're aware of the change in the rule now that resolves this case right that the change affectiva the zimmer wanted two thousand and seventeen that now resolves this issue no your honor and i think th problem there is the issue because framing the issue as whether or not a procedural rule was met is not the issue the issue is what would solve this case right because you have to serve the government you think the rules and the new invalid i think that whether or not the united states receives service is not dispositive is totally immaterial to the jurisdictional question remember that place faced the new now i know you say it's a change i thought your position was that the new rule amendment was a change it is yeah ok it is well do you think that the change works or not i think that the change certainly allows for what the united states six fear which is service on the department of justice my point is that whether or not the department of justice is served is a relevant to the personal jurisdiction question before the court that tells me you're trying to say the new three double seven is invalid i'm not saying it's invalid i'm saying they're on the line i think you're going to see if you could do it go ahead i'm say that the united states can receive notice under the new rule i say that under the old rule which is the rule that governs here worded title to that person you're saying that it's not a personal jurisdiction issue at all is what your side never never asked it's a it's a matter of claims processing etc but that brings up an interesting point that i think judge benton's question ma may touch upon a little bit which is you know the government the united states government's a pretty big entity and if you serve the wrong people yeah tactically they got actual notice but if really somebody else litigating the cla im how on earth other than a rule sixty b motion do they challenge did they challenge the fact that it was not served correctly under the rule because i mean i don't know that you know that any future they may not get notice for ten months from the iraqis here that you know the u s attorney that this was mr at which point they're there stop at sixty be so i'm trying to figure out what their remedy is here i think that goes to a due process question that was not raised in the lower court st of all we're dealing exclusively here with personal jurisdiction challenges as far as how the government is internally organized that's not a matter that the rules or this court should try to solve that's something that the agencies need to do themselves to communicate or we need to see an act of congress that spells that out but the problem is under the new rule and this is i think a little bit of what judge battens getting at is you know let's say you've done the same thing under the new  their language you know it back might they got to have a remedy if it takes six months eight months ten months to forwarded on to the department of justice my point is that had the same mistake been made under the new rule it would not have impacted the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction because the jurisdiction was established at the time the claim was filed so what's the remedy that the case becomes fight all day the department of justice never gets notice the question becomes was there a due process violation by not giving the correct notice and the due process question was one that wasn't argued to the bankruptcy court it was one that i s discovery of to show the agencies had actual knowledge and therefore there was no due process violation so here in the record it shows that the u s attorney in the department of justice had actual no it does not because the bankruptcy court took the matter under advisement after a preliminary none evidentiary telephonic here and so there was no opportunity to go discover what actual knowledge this agency had so we're dealing just with the argument were bringing a sat to jurisdiction all the jurisdictionally significant act is claim filed but if the court does not want to route its decision in that and the the does the gardener decision the espinosa decision then the court can proceed to the rules and say that the combination of rule three hundred and seventy nine thousand and fourteen read together demonstrate that the notice for an objection to a proof of claim must be mailed or otherwise delivered to the claimant and the record that this court has on appeal shows that the notice and the objection to the claim was mailed to the internal revenue service at the address that they specified to receive notices in their proof of claim the analysis can stop there from a textual standpoint nine thousand and fourteen dollars a says and still says unless otherwise governed by these rules and so the notice and the service that the united states wants this court to find in rule nine thousand and fourteen dollars and rule seven thousand and four dollars doesn't exist under the old rules because the notice for claim objections is otherwise governed by the old rule courts that have looked at this issue have missed is that the advisory comment is there to say bankruptcy courts the rules that you need to resolve the so the interpretation of the debtors asking this court if it gets to that step to make is to say by its text one thousand and fourteen subsections a and b defer to rule three thousand and seven but subsection c d and e continue to apply they continue to apply meaning to all of the commentary on this rule they show that objections to claims are still contested matters and they said by magic word hope you wouldn't say it they have an alternative argument and they can find anything i know they didn't raise as well before but did they in effect file a contested matter if the court has the discretion whether or not to decide but the problem is what that argument says is the bankruptcy court has the authority to decide whether or not it wants to decide the issue whether or not it wants to abstain and send the issue to tax floor and when we're talking about an order entered that is void without jurisdiction whether or not the bankruptcy court exercises that discretion doesn't even amount to a question concepts that come under the rubric of jurisdiction there's no dispute that bankruptcy courts have the jurisdictional power to allow claims or disallowed claims the issue really here is personal jurisdiction was the united states notified of what was going on so that it could respond and you know and again defend its interests and i think he's saying something slightly different i think he sang that the united states did not need to be notified as a matter of personal jurisdiction because the united states the internal revenue service voluntarily entered into a buy into the action by filing a proof of claim and it said in ramat and so it's the property that creates personal jurisdiction not the notice well the rules require i would argue that the rules require notice the united states course is not like any other creditor it's huge the bureau d at the i r s who get these objections they they can't run into court and defend the united states  and then you say oh i'm not going to respond because now we've got the hook line and sinker we're going to be able to dismiss this actually goes with the addresses on your clain correct the claim has to have addresses the claim has the claim rests address this right  yes ok so now now answer the question that there's counsel could could not be faulted for becoming confused about what you know where exactly do i look in the rules some of which are in conflict with each other some of which you know have a hopeful advisory note and some of which and i think the nd mailing was just a day or two later assume that i think my friend just figured out that he'd lost something because that would obviously even be if the arabs noticed and called them and said hey we need the other part of this thing and then he sent it i would obviously lead we want in this case is you know show up and can handle a case on the merits or that's all we might have wanted the time i'm going to bring up another issue that for me no one below could be myself to this point has really paid much attention to not entirely sure that the but when bankruptcy court police get the bankruptcy court it for this kind of case it's the same thing the you know if the government had come in right away right after the right after the order disallowing the claim to come back in a were granted relief in the case goes on but does it make any sense to treat that as a non final order but had relief been denied the united states it would have been a final or  ok in this case though other facts are going to show why there really wasn't anything more for the bankruptcy court to do and why the all the action in this case is really bankruptcy by the time the government learned about this and filed a motion to vacate the chapter seven trustee had already marshaled up all the money awarded administrative fees to you know for those expenses and all the rest of the liquid motion chapter seven trustees final account and distribution report certification with the state has been fully administered and application to discharge all money was gone the iris didn't go into court to  to void this order so that it could share in distribution liquid funds they were already gone hers went into this case because after the discharge was entered the i r s figured it was ok to start collecting again it's a non discar in the in the state proceeds we also couldn't collect it outside of bankruptcy and that's why we went back to the banks the court to to preserve the government's right to collect outside of bankruptcy there's really no reason to put this back before the banks in court think maybe we could you know in live it by going back to the banks court and asking i would apartment a regular discourse and we could get our fair share but that's that's unlikely and it's about happening what mr nichols is real the in the cases of this issue is he wants this order saying that iris can't collect outside of bankruptcy and that's why i made my my final argument saying that what he was really looking for was not just to disallow the irises claim in bankruptcy united states and the attorney in the department of justice and litigate this matter in district court procedural posture as to what's going on here and in that opinion and the justices went to great lengths to tell courts this is a rare occurrence where we don't have jurisdiction and we don't and the exercise of jurisdiction in the orders a violation of d process and that is exactly the scenario that we're dealing with here inside of bankruptcy in order as senator and we certainly believe that particularly on the personal jurisdiction issue th the bankruptcy court had  when out that a copy of the objection was that included in the mailing to the ira and i was going to submit a proposed order the bankruptcy court without st knowing that the notice and the objection in set so that's that's what precipitated the nd notice