taxpayer bill of rights and their whole outlook on the case is jeopardized and harms the tolerance in this case under the applicable statutes the appellants are clearly the prevailing parties and the government  bill of rights imposed and basically holding that the irish to be accountable when it fees based on their actions and so when there are questions of a question about it they should have to come forward and tell the court why they were justified in forcing the taxpayer to incur those expenses and in this case the court applied to going to a standard it was requesting documents of a taxpayer who wasn't even under any type of examination whether in russia or in the united states it was patiently eroni it's on the face of it at this summit and what makes this case different that there's questions asked to the corruption in russia and if the i arrest is blindly following russian requests without doing their due diligence and without following i arrest prestigious tasker's can be damaged and in this case they were they lost their biggest contract and they're pretty much out of business week would you go back on the chronology the june letter from the fisheries to the heiress to twenty three which you know they took a position when they filed an answer which is what i believe they could be arguing courts have rejected and basically said that that's generally the case but in situations like this you need to look at the whole facts of the case you need to what is the time line between the phone call and the letter not an inexpensive endeavor i mean it and basically they have the opportunity to save the taxpayer here the fees they didn't do it i'm just wondering about how far the statute does it just goes too far and unclear he says on or about my temper have certainly or he called the iris to notify them that he believed in his opinion that there were problems with the subpoenas including a statute of limitations problem because of the and asked them to voluntarily withdraw there are fish and aquash which they didn't yes that is true if you look at the letter of the phone call excuse me your honour's if you look at the phone call your forty six forty seven in the record the discussion of it the attorney stated that he believed that in his opinion there were problems with the summons including the statute of limitations it's clear that the iraq would have needed time to investigate those claims and determine if in fact they were correct and three days later the petition to quash needed to be filed so that clearly wasn't enough time and we know when that  no i would just agree with that your honor we just gusts that in the brief under the third party summons we believe that they did correctly serve them and service was made it just wasn't in one case received it was return the notice may have been returned but in the other it it appeared to have been received so i don't know when actual receipt was for we believe that pursuant to the third party summons service wildly beyond any statute that i don't know your honor i don't believe that there's anything in the record saying anything other than there was the statute of limitations i'm just asking you in general is that would that mean justified and it was in this case and that takes into account timing they didn't take a position what the government did was to recognize that there was a problem and when it recognized that it remedy the problem as soon as it could otherwi it does your honor and if you look at the cases that we've relied on they take the position that the government is has not established a position until it actually answers which implies that there is time up until the answer is final for the for the wouldn't say it's entirely a first impression i think that hofmann and darnley give clear guidance here that until the government answers or actually does take a position it has that time to in fact examine words are just talking with you about it and you're saying well then there would be counter motions then you would see if you were justified my question specifically is in that case if the government were not substantially justify do you think respect your honor but i think what we're now letting you off the hook for are any claim of the tourney's fee and there shouldn't be any liability on the government's part because the government has to have time to investigate and determine whether the allegations of  taxpayer are in fact true and it may be that there is something as apparently in this case that the government was not aware of the things they need to determine in fact for themselves the position of the taxpayers correct and that was the time frame that they took to do it they didn't take a position they acted they acted first to resolve the issue i think all the other arguments are covered in our brief unless there are any further questions that the government was unwilling to come forward with any information first place i don't think that they were required to do so at this at this point of the perceiving sure honor again had we gotten into a posture where we were responding to the petition to caution we would have been required to do that and also i would mention as an aside because this deals with the tax treaty request it may be that a lot of fists on information is  confidential well under they have furnished information but i'm not entirely sure about what your honor and that's the subject of the pending appeal but if you listen to the government's argument they are saying in essence they were justified that they needed time to respond to the phone call but i i present your view that the government upon receipt of your phone calls should have immediately withdrawn the summons i asked them to and they refused just i do think i do think they have some period of time that recently because one looks at all the facts and circumstances and the problem that i have and they don't have more than three days well you know they may have more than three days but the problem here is that the government really not only refused to withdraw the sums and for and the fact that you were up against a statutory filing date that the government should have done something within three days they should have done something and i think they should have done something within three days because  the summons it shows that it was essential imitations applied and does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that it's tasking for information on not ten years not giving that i think our position though is that it's not necessarily a rigid test that you look at all the facts and circumstances and what happened here is we prevailed the government had the burden of proving that its position was substantially justified it put on no evidence of that if you  reasonably and we say under the new law that's not the case ok well then if if they say they should've done something in three days but it's not exactly that rigid so the only thing that happened between the time that than the fact that you wrote a letter and then the next thing that happens is they said we will withdraw well as far as that time period on there is not your honor but there is other there's of other evidence in the record that is that the no this was not the proper address secondly under section seventy six zero two they did not notify the taxpayer they intended to contact third party so there was other evidence of what we consider to be unjustifiable pondar and basically the point of the statute is this that if the government is going to the panel they change the law and if the government is going to issue some assists and if it's going to ask for information and for somebody to go to  attention harm which which happened in the reason we were forced to file a petition is because statutorily did not that information would be turned over to the russian authorities i mean you had to do that now to preserve your rights just yes we had to do that to preserve our rights we had no choice so we were forced to do it that still doesn't mean that i had to mr lee send a letter in the letter that i did so i asked for all kinds of information as judge fletcher correctly points out our family attorneys fees that you incurred with respect to the summons at that point was your letter to the i r s is that correct and that was the only action that was taken under the way the statute is just now written we prevailed and if they wanted to avoid the position that we prevailed they would have to come forward they had the burden show that their position was substantially justified and if the government believed that it needed time and it needed sixty days to determine the schedule imitations it should have put that evidence on where you're mixing apples and oranges here question was whether the government had t