ability to hear refund actions for any tax penalty or any sign that excessive or wrongfully collected however those courts selman important holmes determined that the statute sixty four was drawn in such broad term whether it's thirty forty six or fourteen ninety one is the court to see from the opinion there's a question about that but there is an independent outside of the tax court internal revenue code tax court jurisdiction jurisdictional purpose thirteen forty circuit to look at this very clearly hill that there was thirteen forty six and fourteen ninety one jurisdiction over these refund claims based on interest abatement but they were but they weren't justice of all due to the broad nature of the  to continue to hold that the district courts in the court of federal claims can no cannot exercise their emitted jurisdiction like i said tenth circuit the eleventh circuit found that they could exercise their jurisdiction and statement in the law and we'll see every case after this it is that that is the course like jurisdiction and that's not the initial determination that was made and it's not that it's just not defensible when you look at the language of thirteen forty six and i'm i'm speculating your honor because there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history to back this up but there have been limits in the past but in this situation the  well you're right your honor but even even with the help of the two million dollars imitation the issue becomes does the tax court have exclusive jurisdiction in the grand scheme of tax controversy jurisdiction that just as it is  board you know that the difference between seventy four forty two that parses out discrete tax court jurisdiction in the internal revenue code and that the comparatively broad jurisdiction that's given under thirteen forty six and fourteen ninety one i see i'm in my rebuttal time but i would like to make one point there is two totally different sources of authority congress knows how to say exclusive if it meant to say exclusive it does in the tax or debate in the tax code good thing  you look under section seventy four twenty nine be under jeopardy assessments it says exclusive jurisdiction of the tax court exclusivist the words they are it's not in sixty four for same with an unauthorized disclosure section sixty one tin ja they initially determined there was jurisdiction but because the statute was drawn such broad terms like they couldn't address it and this goes to a statement that was made by miss house or that the tax court cases haven't actually reached the meat of this argument about what are the standards and that's not really true i've read all those texts were cases and i can give you a couple of science here where the texas court of course they are favorable in that th that are a reasonable of the previous standard it was a higher standard in our opinion the grossly why don't we see it is grossly unfair so it's not just all errors in the lens of the tax court reviews those cases for abuse of discretion where th abused his discretion now there's a case that came out of this court murphy back in nineteen ninety three that says an agency is beyond to follow its own procedural regulations and the test with regard to that is that the standards and here are the appropriate we decide whether the agency follow the procedures because by their nature the procedures and at that if there are discretion but the court is not called upon to exercise any discretion whether  asking you to take it out of the the in a political sixty four of course amendments we're just asking you to apply the law that you already have your hands now with regard to that the net worth would be herman as this quite is pointed out to me it's entirely