seems that the precedents determining what reasonable cause is or create a pretty strong standard for reasonable cause of that seems to belie the simplicity of the language so if you would explain to us why under the controlling do that it goes a step further than that he had additionally wrongfully concealed the fact from the company from the vertues the owner of the l l c he intercepted notices from the and wrongfully concealed i don't understand what that adds to failing his duty to the corporation and the corporations duty to the government to the file returns and pay taxes been no employment taxes returns filed or paid since the second quarter of two thousand and ten and during that time period we come to find it was later discovered that  what about this notion of incapacitation yes the to me the cases they are few and far between but the only ones that are favorable on this particular issue leaving aside th accountant aspect of it yes you are are you incapacitation where the you how do you apply that in if it has to be incapacitation in this particular case i did that happen here and simply by walling off the  notices received from the i r s and keeping from those who were needing to know that being jacked be right the owner of the company the true nature of the of that the dire situation of the company's tax mr beaver in all candor i don't know if those were from a influx of his own personal funds or or or company monies but again that would i believe that would go towards an issue of fact  sure boy i'm sure boyle doesn't say because the supreme court never never gets down to that level of detail so what makes this a question of fact as opposed to one of law well the question of fact as to  reliance on tax expert advice as well that's that's why i thought the facts here was you undisputed that the accountant just relied on what rather told him he didn't there was with nobody asked an accountant for advice nobody asked the accountant didn't give any advice as an accountant they can it just didn't verify whether the taxes had been  basically make it make a determination it's not just what the ex but what he did correct what he did and what he didn't do but what what the company was relying on him for was to make it that determination as involved ok i was going to ask you would give me the accountants advice here that wasn't simply the ministerial duty of making sure the corporate official responsible to pay taxes and file returns did that would be part of what but his determination to give me the advice whether the i believe that's another question of fact which is also and there are british sided with the state of lifting as far as the scope of the advice and the scope of the representation of the of the tax expert in this case it was the tax accountants duty or or job under engagement to make a determination as to tax liability i think that goes for the day  books his is representational be that the books the book show that taxes were paid it was argued to the district court that that was that was a basis for reasonable grounds and he put that fails under th a material fact here under thirty and that's the point that's why i think that's why i think i think the only your only hook here is the incapacitation question and what that means and is that the question of fact which they're on does not decide that's correct i don't have a case unless you unless one of you is hiding it where an insider inside employee with the ultimate duty of paying taxes failed in that duty and the question was was that incapacitating because he was the top of the top chain in the latter even though he was named bezel or and he didn't he didn't rob the store so the company couldn't pay for his was his lack of effort for which he was solely responsible and incapacitating event i don't think you've got a case and i don't think you've got a case that says that's a question of record is that it was mr mr rather's job duties to get the mail each day and that and the mail room understood whether the law whether the i r s notice said care of or an attention dever it went to rather right he was the one that picked up that picked up the mail and and the male essentially went to his death but they had but once there she was there are showing that he somehow  after it's all hit the fan and he's covering up that that that that isn't the contemporaneous evidence you need but i believe that it is his testimony in that hearing as to what he did previously is indicative of outside the norm practices so see my time's up so i thank you and that here where do we find that hearing testimony on the record i haven't studied good morning may please the court randolph hunter for the united states you're understood the complaint that was filed in this case listed stated extremely barebones allegations and the district court was correct to dismiss it under a motion twelve b under twelve b six i don't know why you have to why you have to plead reasonable cause with that with this sort of specificity that might be required of a price fixing complain well you have your eye cleaning negligence and that no no your honor that you can't the supreme court has said you can't just make conclusions of fact and conclusions of law and state the missed fact you can't just say someone is guilty of negligence allegation of negligence is a little less than the as a little less dramatic than a plausible allegation of price fixing what the cases say is that there has to be a plausible argument that you have a claim for relief your your you more than a sheer possibility that's quoting from nick won't get there they have to be allowed the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is actually liable for the contact conduct that the plaintiff has charged you can't just state the defendant was negligent and therefore we have survived twelve b six motion you have to states some facts showing that here's refund i paid the tax i filed a claim for refund the i r s said no i've met all my statutory timelines here's my complaint i should i should proceed with discovery and be able to try to have a refund claim here after iqbal and trombley you have to state facts that show that you get to decide what's your what's your best posted ball refund suit authority for this in the circuit court i haven't i don't know that i have a refund sixteen of our brief and those cases are all district court cases where once a federal court of claims case paediatric affiliates from the district of new jersey this wait a minute little you asserted it but it's without authority i and i believe that it's true i certainly believe that it will i don't think i don't think it's particularly possible to use paul's famous words i don't i don't know that  what lies behind every refund suit is typically a huge i r s tax payer appellate process file yes and everybody knows that but all their arguments are legal and what if you've got three b six stage but they didn't even make allegations that the case was similar sent it to third and they plead reasonable cos yes they stated but they didn't plead that they got professional or tax expert advice from anyone i'm not worried i will then that's the only way you get to know it's not i'm focused on rather yes i can count the accountant was not an advisor no he was not an advice doesn't admit he was an agent absolutely but rather wasn't was an incapacitating higher up the rather taking the plaintiff strongest feel of the case rather was the operations manager for the company beaver was the owner only thirty employees in this company and we don't know anybody supervising rather except be for those the only two individuals mentioned in the complaint and beaver could have checked on rather any day they allege in their complaint th they paid their taxes for twenty years let's go to summary judgment or trial and and have that out that's you just talking to that x yes and the facts they allege don't get beyond the statement that that we relied on that agent and therefore we should not be liable for these penalties and boil says no i'm sorry but i don't wear lines on that agent is not good enough if you're liable for the penalties so does bail in manufacturing so just call them brothers cases  that's not enough so yes still liable for the penalties so my question or our position is that they had stated facts barebone facts under which they ha no legal cause of action at all there's no plausible cause of action and in the words of this court and the bench and vs merrill lynch course that case that we cited that reveals the actions just their only job was to check on whether the optus manager had our operations manager had done his duty they were not relied on for any kind of tax advice or expert  change this case is not like biomaterials the case where the c e o and the c f o of the corporation were the two individuals who were doing the nonpayment of the taxes there was well the court said there was a disability of the corporation therefore the government argued and i think the government still would argue that the corporation would still have liability there was a board of directors to ask you did does the government agree with the analysis and even with the bad guys not only not paying the taxes but bankrupting the company the government still disagrees with the result well your bankruptcy claim for the penalty should have been allowed in full if the nonpayment really strong what we're what we're not happy about that it wasn't shown that their non payment of the taxes caused the bankruptcy or that the bankruptcy couldn't you know there was no connection here that they still might have been able to  in your brief that was that range to the district court it was not ok because it seems to me if that's raised to the district court then what's in the reply brief comes back and says wait a minute we we aren't really doing a very ok it was not raised in the district court thank you very much your honor rest of that hunter mr hadley have any time remaining mr headley did you have something just burning from that you heard that you feel in fairness you need to disclose the court i think it's important to point out that the number of the cases that the united states relies upon as far as determining what's reasonable cause and what's not was determined at the summary judgment level or beyond that