understanding why this is an implied repeal case at all i mean that this implied repeal is you have these two as you say totally inconsistent statutes you have no idea which one is supposed to apply so we infer that based on the chronology congress in the nd one repealed the st because it would have known about the st one in an act of the nd nobody is arguing for an implication here the argument as i understand it  we know exactly what congress wants you to do we don't have to infer anything congress said in the m d r a that notwithstanding any other federal law this is the statute that governs so this is this just looks like a pretty straight forward statutory construction case to me and indeed when the supreme court deals with these notwithstanding clauses it doesn't talk about repeal by implication it just says that those show congress is clear intent that it wants this statute to prevail over any other and it simply does not appear scrutiny and now withstanding laws and swell is is not often considered to repeal any and every law that would stand in the way of the key case that the government has relied on actually uses the notwithstanding clause it is in a contract so it is referring to other language in that same contract and that is an understandable use because like over here you have t then the new mandatory restitution scheme to operate even where there might be some piece of prior legislation a law that would have been  it's a pretty strong statement says notwithstanding any other federal law and then it talks about all property or whites to property of the person on that categor compensation benefits and social security benefits disability pension plans of all kinds are the executive plans plans involving wanted to or each act quickly to the social security act referenced in the months to me because i think it's important and the government has as pointed out that the social security act referenced must need an act the because i think it's included because of the statute in terms to get the properly of all the property of a person and social security as you know number one pays out a lot more and people pay in number one dollar and number two the money isn't all there it's taxed yearly and so people who write thoughtfully about social security basically it's a welfare plan that whether you have a right to it or not  might depend on the funds but it's not there's not a it's not a corpus of funds like a like a pension fund that they're just paying out anyway about the i don't i'm not sure that so worth  afield too soon but so the magistrate judge wrote an opinion agreeing with you on everything you've just said but the magistrate judge said that as a result the government can take the account but with the exception of any tax withholdings by schwab under the terms of the plan and the terms of the plan say that schwab will withhold d twenty percent and that the defendant in this case are now the government stepping into the defendant shoes would only get eighty percent so number two has to according to the terms of the plan turn over twenty percent for taxes withheld by schwab and so in this case i don't know which ones applied st but in this case if you dollars frank would get seventy dollars seems to me the government should take seventy dollars and give him credit for one hundred dollars and turn over that schwab but the twenty percent of the the government is looking for the asset and the asset that france has is subject to the twenty percent withholding the temps and penalty and so should the government get war because if it is more then it imposes those duties on frank now at this point frank would have to pay all the taxes probably maybe he says the reply percent but he has to pay the patches on the withholding n e f to pay the penalty so now the now the  get a lump sum but you will take it government subject to the tax penalties faced by the defendant for early distribution of his retirement funds so i'm concerned about breaking with another circuit on this d and i'm also concerned that the district court never looked at any of this right and i'm not exactly sure what happened here because the magistrate judge did say like you got to look at the terms of the plans you have to figure all of this stuff out and the district court did and the district court instead granted this sort of ten percent matter of equity kind of allotment to the defendant so should i mean one possible solution that strikes me is we could send this back to the district court until the district court to look at the i r s letters and figure out you know if the government gets what frank would get standing in friendship is that the district courts figure out what that amount is yes honor and that would be a possible outcome meet do you think the record here is sufficient  a choice you made early on before even the hard in the restitution are you decide where to put his money whether it's in the savings bank on a pension plan or in greece matches it seems to me the government takes whatever assets jake his assets the way they are today and if they're under the bed in the form of gold was suppose you can take again i'm the distinction that the government should go and would make now is that th nature of a property and in this case he made that choice legitimate in the not connected with anything in this case and he now has a pension money a lump sum pension money that's subject to tax you should get penalized there's no basis to go back and say he made a choice and therefore you don't you add on to what he has to pay and that's essentially what the government's position we're going to make him not only turn over the assets and there we're going to tell him saying that but we're supposed to be determining how much money can be attached  i just want to make sure i understand where we are on this ten percent penalty i mean was this brief should we just take our use is it your position on behalf of the government i guess is the government saying no to us there will be no ten percent penalty do not worry about that and you can make that so i don't speak and i cannot but there are many things and there are iras letters there are many of iran's guidance i'm sorry i'm sorry council can i can find the part about how they're i r s letters saying that the ten percent withdrawal penalty won't be imposed in a case like this but that is  sorry i do apologize i can't find it on your honor only just seems like a tax law question that i'm not expert on but thought understand you to be arguing that with respect to the if if if we were to agree that the government could reach mon  and so there are all kinds of exemptions that provide that when a person earns one hundred dollars a week he can take home some of that money to pay for shelter food et and garnishment and the hands of the employer means that the warrior will take twenty percent toward the debt and eighty percent to the employee the employee takes eighty percent or the employee takes one hundred per cent of his earnings and takes a portion of them and put them in a savings account that was earnings but now it's savings it's no longer even fits the fits the structure of what's be protected there is d an exception with respect to a pension plan when you yet to that you've retired and the pension plan keep paying you a sixty percent of your salary for the rest your life that according to the section and seventy two dollars would also be subject to the exceptions but here this defendant accumulated a savings of now so it was a lump sum a savings account and while he did so from earnings days you can buy municipal bonds and you can buy you can go into various savings plans where you pay taxes upfront but then there's no taxes on the earnings you can put deferred tax plans and so forth how you save your money seems to me isn't a question of whether that money is compensation for personal services the compensation of personal services is a compensation paid by the person receiving those services to him and sides the beginning when it's going and if it were to come out in a lump sum now or if it were paid out periodic plea at a point really began with trying it would be treated as earnings in each of those scenarios so even if he were today to