certainly is that better a better and i'm here for a major forex buying through its partner robert flack there were a number of assignments of error in the appeal here today but what i'd like to discuss with this court this morning is the issue that i think underlies most if not all of those issues that issue is that what is the correct scope of review for the district court in determining the partner's statute of limitations  partnership level proceeding and i think i would suggest that the answer to this is a simple one as most good answers are and that is that in a partnership level proceeding the issues should are limited to the the valuation in the proceeding the proper venue for individual issues and in particular the individual allegations of individual fraud is an individual level proceeding and by that i want to be clear what i mean is in this case an audit of mr flass return individual returns for the year the administrative appellate rights that he would enjoy that audit a statutory notice of deficiency and judicial review of that statutory notice of deficiency in a proceeding where all of his circumstances and defenses were available that's not what happened here instead this a partnership proceeding when the s was unsuccessful in attributing the conviction of the organizer of the entity to the partners including mr flack the i r s and then switched to asserting and trying the issues of mr flass perceived individual inaccuracies on his individual returns in particular the idea of the outside basis in his partnership interest these deductions for insurance payments and the like the district court allowed this to go on at the trial level over my objection and the district court relied upon these individual issues in rendering through well the iris would have  ty just a baseline to look at any tax liability of an individual period is not right in an individual proceeding as shown and if that individual is connected to a partnership you're saying what happens then there's some kind of barrier we can't look at the individual that's correct this is not a gotcha argument your honor if that is not what i am saying is that by definition the way that the statutes set up these proceedings there is a difference between a partnership proceeding and an individual level proceeding and in a partnership level proceeding the court is limited to partnership issues and the individual issues that were raised in in the district court here or beyond the scope that the district court has regarding me told throughout not only the statutes and also a lot of the arguments that have been raised here that the idea of looking at a partnership tax liability is to look at it as one complete whole you look at the analysis as a whole involving all the partners need partnerships look at it as a package right isn't that part of france asserted here in accuracies it had to go and do and gauge in individual audits of each partner and in large partnerships that resulted in inconsistent caesar the results so congress passed tougher and  created this procedure where all of the partnerships level issues were resolved in one proceeding but it is always been part of test for that individual level issues required an individual level proceeding beyond the partnership one which is where a lot of this confusion obviously comes from because that is a bit of a of a conceptual problem  states that the district court is limited looking at partnership items for the partnership in question it also of course permits the court from its partners to show up and contest whether or not the statute of limitations for partnership items has expired after also provides for a part and has a partnership statute of limitations provision that's code section sixty two twenty nine and that section mirrors the language of the jurisdictional grant intemperance says that partnership items the statute of limitations for partnership items will not run before three years after the date of the filing the partnership returns it then has a fraud provision as well that says partners who sign the partnership return their statute for partnership what you're supposed to thing that it is because we have several courts saying that it's not first of all it's it's designated as a statute of limitations in the statutory language second i when i'm talking with the i r s about this i think we're talking past each other because this case is the case law says that you have to look at these two statutes of limitations together that there's really just one and i  agree with that analysis the question is where are those are raised and that is where the i r s and i are talking past each other in a partnership level proceeding the district court should have looked sole to the partnership the tab for a statute of limitations that has no bearing on what might be the statute in an individual proceeding if the i r s chose to engage in as i said i'm not arguing this as a gotcha that somehow the partnership the test for a statute of limitations then limits an individual assessment i'm simply saying that in a partnership level person independent statute of limitation certainly not not an independent one but it is a it is the extension that applies to partnership level title so you would agree then that you would read that when the one operates in an individual proceeding and this is the this is the distinction that i'm trying to make and this is the distinction that i think is important but is very abstract as  that unfortunately is the nature of this of the tougher up processes themselves and the abstractness of this is that there are ship level proceeding is only part of the picture and then there is an individual level proceeding that fills out the rest of the word is a fraud play in both according to your argument as a distinction between the partnership and the individual because minor partner in the partnership and there's no evidence that he ever signed the return or had anything to do with the with the preparation of the tax return for the partnership but that you then acknowledge that it's the individual who actually pays the tax and because it flows down to the individual yes so the the real question here is what's the i r s allowed in a partnership proceeding to drag in all of the individual issues to try to establish to try to up hold the partnership assessment and which denied him has often denied the individual partner his opportunity for his individual proceeding or were they required that i think so you're arguing the i r s was wrong in the way they proceeded general question that is they should have resolved everything in the partnership and then looked at individuals if possible that is exactly how the statute is set up how tougher is set up and it's exactly how the u s supreme court analyzed the issue in the penalty arena in us the woods and in that case the supreme court was looking at whether or not in a partnership proceeding they could assert and they had were able the district court was able to assert a penalty that relied upon partnership partner level issues and the court said that what happens in a temper proceeding is that the partnership level the court can make the partnership level findings that relate to the penalty but then you would have to have a partner level proceeding to fill out the rest of any issues that were required to fully assess that penalty this type of bifurcation of the partnership issues and the individual issues is part of exactly the way that the supreme court analyzed the issue when it was talking about penalties in exactly this in as in the similar tempera type of case so that was the error that similar type of case was when trying to set up a doctrine or a whipsaw but that still poses a problem for the government if we look at the cases cited in our brief wiener davenport chimbo and the case relied on by mr flagg pressing they all say that the statute of limitations is a partnership issue and if it's not raised unresolved at the partnership level it's forever waived that is confirmed by the actual statute conferring jurisdiction sixty two twenty six d which states that a partner can raise the statute of limitations solely for the purpose of the thirty that the statute has expired for assessing partnership items against them and the court when for limitations purposes and we're not going beyond limitations purposes it considers whether a partner's individual tax return remains open to assessment because mr flack put limitations in look at the limitation statutes we start with sixty five zero one a which is the standard limitation as we recognize partnerships are passed through entities is the individual partner who is actually paying the tax statute of limitations extension are strictly construed in the favor of the government and if a tax item has more than one extension of clickable to it the government gets the benefit of the longest extension there can be more than one tax item if a tax payer commits fraud and his individual returns the statute of limitations is open for all time for all assessments including partnership assessments at slowing its coal stock it's the tax court in rome of limitations defense mr fletcher did open up his return and proceedings to consider the individual fraud on his return to look through it and to see yes there was fraud if there's fraud on your return the statute of limitations for that return is open forever and indeed your assertion that the period of limitations for assessing limitations  title as the language of the actual text of the statue finally looking at it can i just address that though are you saying that the title is inconsistent with the language or that the it does deal with the period of limitations for making assessments and but so yes it is a perfect description because it does deal with that period but the language is shall not expire or expire before three assess a partnership item because all partnerships are not taxed another themselves they do file separate returns an information return apart from the partners and so if he's off saying when the partnership files the return you get at least different filing times with different returns  just going towards woods missouri supreme court case itself the civically with penalties and it dealt with a different different statue detail with sixty two twenty six s which talks about determining the flexibility of the penalty at the partnership level and it did indeed say that you determine as a partnership level whether penalties apply couple and then the partners in refunds suits you get the chance to raise their individual partner defenses which is different language from sixty two twenty six d which deals with the statutes of limitations so if there are no further questions i will rest on every test for has been repealed yes it has your honor this is a case of last impression i guess in that sense we don't know what's in the pipeline but yes the new statute i believe is effective for this year thank you thank you r so there is a long period where we the court may see these things come up again in the future and i want to reiterate as my last statement that this is not about a gotcha this is about a level playing field to make sure that the processes and procedures and statutes that apply to the taxpayer are also honored by the i r s and that one is not getting an unfair advantage over the oh well the government argues that you you individual level he raised the statute of limitations at the partnership level and the partnership statute of limitations that was appropriate under the statute but again it's the scope of what was at issue in that proceeding and in that proceeding only the partnership issues where it's where it issue not the individual ones well i don't i take it from what both encounter opposing counsel said was that that's were it has to be raised and if the individual doesn't raise it there his way so that by raising the statute of limitation in the partnership that that opens the door then on the basis of the individual fraud he was required to raise in the partnership statute of limitations in the partnership your honor but the individual one is a different issue and i see that my time has expired well doesn't this road run both ways i mean he is trying the clock your client is trying to say you're on a this is not about him getting out from underneath these taxes in all circumstances it's not a not ever it's just not here if the i r s wished to proceed against an individual e they might have that ability to do so it was in this proceeding where it was improper and thank you both for your arguments and cases submitted