you do your reading good afternoon your honor thomas reiter on behalf of petitioner jason jeffers may proce versus commission may please the court of jason jeffers he's always wanted to pay his fair share of tax but in this case we filed amended return claims that were never considered his underlying tax liabilities at that time as a matter of logic and fair process why is it improper for the tax court  request happy's of the tax returns with a w two forms to verify the withholding that's why he couldn't contest that federal tax lien because he only had thirty five dollars days to contest so we were conducting the investigation at that time he didn't have copies of his own tax return he didn't have the w to use the verify the withholding when he hired our office he just said he didn't really know why they disallowed the withholding that's how come we had to request copies of the  so he's always wanted to pay his fair amount of tax and they never explained it's been over four years they still haven't made a decision in this case if we lose at this point and then go to supreme court granted one hearing he he never participated in the earlier hearing because he was conducting the investigation in this case ninety percent of the  employees are trying to do their job it's a very difficult job with template hated tax issues but you have certain people that just don't wanna do their job correctly so this case if there was no revenue officer involved this case probably wouldn't even exist because we would have just been able to salvage administratively the two thousand and nine and it never got sent to the service center they never had a chance to make a decision at this point if we have to file the case and in district court like they're saying then we just have to pay another four hundred dollars fee that this court's decision any court seems the treasury regulation on trial opportunities to be in that lives the regulation directly overrules the underlying code if it contradict that you can't draft a regulation that directly contradicts the code on which it's based it seems to me that our courts decision in our country who d regulation does our country home with a ministry was a when he had one appeal hearing though he had an appeal hearing to to argue about the underlying penalty and then he was at appeal hearing in jeffers case his one appeal hearing is with the appeals officer and they never consider his his amended return claims hear basically trying to treat an uncontested federal tax lien as if it was an uncontested notice of statutory notice which would you know act as a precluded issue they're trying to upgrade on the other thing was that the the jensen case was a similar case with the notice of federal tax lien that was on contest that but the tax court attorney in that case was willing to work and i noticed and a stipulation of settled issues so we were able to agree on what the taxpayer owed in this case since the district council disobeyed the tax court standing order they just said they're not going to look at our evidence that's why we had to file a request for admission because he said he was just going to do a motion for summary judgment instead of instead of you know sitting down with us and looking at the evidence what the taxpayer o case about amended returns and this is not a case about a refund claim there were no amended returns and no refund claim before the tax court because this is a collection due process proceeding the tax court is only reviewing an administrative record for abuse of discretion or there is no cost nor harm to taxpayer to filing a protective request for a hearing even if his evidence is not fully collected at the time that that request comes to the once a hearing is requested it is assigned to a settlement officer in the i r s office of appeals and then he would deal directly with that settlement officer to collect any necessary information and if he to find while pursuing copies of information which i believe your honor has verve would likely have been in his possession already some point he then would have been able to go back to the settlement office or if it turned  his claim was not what he thought he would say oh never this is not a valid administrative claim thanks for your time or he could have had he found a meritorious claim there pursued in that hearing but by not taking the opportunity to have that hearing he effectively consented to the public filing of a notice a federal tax lien now to what he received the the notice under section six thousand three hundred and twenty dollars that triggered that hearing opportunity and is expressed we contemplated in the treasury regulation as an opportunity for a reason terminations of liability if it is a situation where as  in year two thousand and nine here where the taxpayer had not previously received a notice of deficiency or otherwise in the case of two thousand and one here for example he had felt report of his own liability it was on his return that he had filed so he would not have received a notice of deficiency at least with respect to that year and i think we lay out in our brief how the particularities of each tax year at issue here and why and wh circumstance of the notice the deficiency could or could not have issued but materially to our purposes here the two tax years that we're talking about here in this room i  subject to the two thousand and twelve notices federal tax lien filing which he had the opportunity to challenge and at that hearing he could have raised any disputes with respect to his underlying liabilities four  a right to redetermine under the collection due process remark the collection due process framework provide the taxpayer one opportunity to dispute it underlying tax liability that may be a notice of deficiency it may be as here a noticeable publicly in filing under section six th and the tax court would potentially be required to consider his amended return there because that's a proceeding to read determine a deficiency the session see is not assessed liability it's a discrepancy between the return that you filed and the determination of the i r s and there are judicial proceedings dedicated to that process you could you can bring a suit in the tax court a petition in the tax court for a determination of the deficiency and that's where you get to say i don't owe this tax i don't actually owe the tax do you think i do your determination is incorrect here is what i actually are a collection due process proceeding which this is is not designed to present that sort of opportunity there is a safe harbor provision in the collection due process statutory framework for a lot of deliveries that a taxpayer has not had the opportunity to dispute in tax court such as a self reported liability like here but the collection due process proceeding is primarily to review collection actions which are done when a debt is assessed already an assessment happens after your time to contest a disputed underlying deficiency has one so if he's receiving notices a deficiency a different clock is running on that he can he can pile up the tax work attention within ninety days and then he gets different standards of review on appeal from that determination from the decision of court he or his own abuse of discretion review and the abuse of discretion he alleges is the settlement officer's failure to consider his amended returns but the settlement officer correctly looked to the regulation and said no i can't consider this challenge to your liability now because this is not your st can connect the collection due process here and that would have been your opportunity to contest the liabilities that were not subject to a notice of deficiency now we know that two thousand a parent lee was a year for which a notice of deficiency was sense but because there was no up no evidence of that in the record the tax court assumes contesting those liabilities and a subsequent collection due process hearing because that was his opportunity that was his prior opportunity to disputed liability now he suggests here that the regulation is invalid because its reading of section six th opportunity to do so whether or not you took that opportunity subsection c for a is a broader rule and it says once you have materially protested pated in an actual hearing you cannot later re raise any issue liability or other their will there are two ways to get the packs court and if i understand your honour's question correctly are asking if there's tax pro if you have a collection to process your yes this is an appeal from the decision of the tax court which is reviewing the administrative records in the collection due process administrative proceedings and it's reviewing it for abuse of discretion by the settlement officer and it found not and the reason why it's not done is because the settlement officer acted in accordance with the regulation which the court has upheld in these facts would have been he received the collection due process notice and he has the right to seek an administrative hearing he doesn't go directly to tax court from a notice a determination which is the document he receives here he does have the right i see my time's up those liabilities are now beyond dispute and subject to collection and for that reason there was no error in the tax court's conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion in declining to consider them here and for those reasons  determination in the st notice of determination they the appeals officer erroneous we told the taxpayer he could not address the liability and he waited until he got the nd notice of collection action and then at that time he tried to challenge his liability and then they said he had he should have addressed to viability in the very st hearing that he requested the way the collection due process works as you have to request a collection you pass  send them to the dam that's what the revenue manual says to do but in this case when it got to appeals with the settlement officer it was just like bell with the very st request for the collection due process hearing they didn't look at anything and said yep the appeals officer just kind of like yelled at me that he wasn't going to consider the amended returns he said he would only consider a collection alternative he said i said well my have a have a decision that help just to know i have to go back and think about it but thank you thank you if there are no more questions i waive the rest