treasurer says the president's responsible and the president says the treasury's responsible for not paying the taxes that's just the way these cases go why is the government right to bring the parties together make sure that they confront each other and they did has an opportunity to collect taxes from whoever is responsible well i think that was the government's purpose here mrs miss beard brought the suit in practice prior to section sixty three thirty one i's and act and that was that normally that the refunds to work were all parties can be joined with the state in favor of the litigation where everybody's liability could be determined together and i think the question here is whether sixty three thirty line i changed that and i think the sec story language on its face makes clear that that's that's not change because the related proceeding applies to allow us to like the texas through here to go forward and i think if you looked at especially language what section sixty three thirty one here in britain and you're going to get us to proceeding relating to a proceeding yes well i think that what can that possibly mean as you read it the rest of the statute doesn't have any meaning well i don't think that proceeding related to a proceeding and you're reading well i think how do i read that exception to give to have some meaning to stop some sort of court proceedings as i also allows you to be there some sense from what you're saying and the question is as it relates to the refunds and i think clearly it does the same material facts are going to be an issue the same operation the corporate ation going to be the issues that are so make sense in terms of relating and why and why is the censors here well i think the why i think because paragraph four a two i listen exception to that rule and herefore a two i says if the texas to relate to the refund suit then it can't be enjoined and  think this type of these two types of suits the courts have described is related in cases like the the freeman case which is cited in our brief for example and it was  person another well i think that the related proceedings exception with designed to carve out this kind of situation where you had a case with all the parties and all the same issues in another court and to allow that to go for it and i think you would have to was the common practice prior to the statute and i think i'd like to judge raters question which i think goes to the well if if this is a related proceeding and it can go for the texas who can go forward and what does attack the statute actually allow in joining and i think there are a number of types of proceedings that pertain just a collection that we've discussed everything like a fraudulent conveyance and action that was trying to keep the taxpayer from transferring assets out of the jurisdiction and he's going to really just to collection and they don't resist and legal issue so i think that for that reason those those types of proceedings wouldn't be when we're talking about these divisible taxes most of the employment excise taxes right that's right the issue's going to almost always be  just talked about the president says he didn't do it the treasurer says he didn't do it or she's in this case well for example before the recent suit was filed he says it's in may the iras and all those other exceptions that you're talking about are pretty meaningless they're not the issue well no i think they are that they are what congress was trying to stop while the liability was being determined i mean i think for example if there was already a a stupid name to foreclose a federal tax lien based on the asse the statute paragraph four defines what kinds of of proceedings can go forward are which rather scenes are barred in terms of what paragraph one limits and paragraph one very clearly on its face just limits collection for the think there is none before you can get to the related proceedings exception you have a situation where and there could be no restriction on a suit against a third party anyway and so i thought that's all the related proceeding didn't exist if there were no exceptions to that you would not be able to bring the suit against this spirit in texas just to clarify your question your honor i think in the spirit o we focus on i want to make sure i understand the government's position is that if i listed that nice beard they could not proceed with this case against mr in texas and to the only reason that your saying you can because an exception carved out a number fo mean if i say relay proceeding also lucky to sue me we're in texas it's wallows up oh i was thinking of it i think what congress was trying to do is to make sure that taxpayers got their day in court before any collection action took place and i think when you look at the time if you look at your honor the example sees quite clear to me what congress was trying to do here was discussing both the senate and the house report is to prevent the government from initiating related claims against the other person the same person in multiple court they're trying to protect the taxpayer from being having multiple can go forward in multiple court well i don't think it says anything about the suits returning liability and multiple courts in the statute itself and i think the statute carve out these related proceedings think that time and that by related claims i think that that sentence first of all you know given that that you believe in part of the statute superfluous i mean does it make sense to look at this i think rather murky legislative history when the statute itself e judge does the decision to the priors and it does make it confusing but i don't think i mean i think it can't be defining related proceedings or early proceedings or wouldn't have included counter claims there and i think just going back to the statutory language assessments the government having set are the people with them sued them in the other court and then they would ask the first court to stay its proceedings made little sense didn't it made some sense but in in that in that not in the restructure nobody was being required to litigate into court they just went to the one court where both parties were present and you got a result yes yes but it was unfair congress perceived unfair to the plaintiff who went first because that person went first brought conceded in his deposition that he's not speeding is large bilinear the case is conceded that already and and that gets to the government's secondary argument that they're asking this court to stay the claims tory rather than send it back that would be inappropriate with a whole panoply of perceived to be abuses of the i r s one pam one problem was that the i r s in these situations even though it has a policy that would not lead would not seize the taxpayers assets while the taxpayer has one of these refunds sometimes the i r s would go ahead and seize so congress passed the first part of sixty three thirty one say if one taxpayer brings a suit you cannot go and levy on even though that was in a policy they've said you're for because then they also said they didn't like iris did not like one taxpayer going first and then and having his or her first choice of course first and then having the i r s drag them in somewhere else to a court that may be inconvenient government may prefer the issues about pointing back and forth are really some of the government's a great deal about them but you get depositions in these cases they're going to testify in both these cases it's pretty fear radical that you're going to have many interest system verdicts case but any of the congress said no and congress pass is that statute means only that if a taxpayer brings a refund suit from the first part means the government may not is forbidden from suing that taxpayer the government may not sue the times but that's what the government's here is and then the government says and by the count going against the taxpayer in the court or federal claims it did and that's what the that's what that's proper because except the counter claim exception allowed that the other suits the legislative history clearly and congress clearly wanted to allow them to sue mr example for example of the proceedings related to a proceeding for example this includes a suit against the responsible person so unless the court is in from the question itself a clue no thank you thank you determined and letting the texas to go for it allows that and i think i just really emphasize there's nothing on the face of the statute if you look at this session where language is a starting point there's nothing that suggests that third party is with due respect in the first place there's nothing that's just the related proceeding pertains to just third party claims against third parties and i think it is a they are so short structural it's a look at the plain language of the statute and there's just no way you can say that the texas suit doesn't relate to the