marcus th and george lacker are married and have been for for many years this is the court knows is a case that arises from the tax court through the court's jurisdiction to hear cases arising from the tax court it centers to a great almost i think predominant extent or on the admissibility of certain substantiating documents as the record reflects we really have to try inches of tax years in question although there are still questions for reasons that probably don't bear on this particular analysis two thousand and seven in two thousand and eight with the subject of an examination that  did not spend very much time on this and was not particularly involved with negotiations or discussion with the i r s submitted to the court four boxes banker boxes full of copied receipts and cancelled checks and things along this the these lines and really frankly would have been difficult for the court to sort through judge laberge not psychiatrist he's taught at harvard yale george washington columbia and around the country is also been occurred in the united states army was on the v a and before that emigrated from hungary after years of his life and all this occurred while he was in the seventy's that he had already provided those documents the ones four hundred and twenty million seventy two thousand line to the i r s through its office of the taxpayer advocate and only receive them back just before the september two thousand and thirty trial date and that was what he provided to the the court at that point subsequent to that i entered my appearance for purposes of tax years that were not at that point in an issue for which statutory notice is a deficiency word issued until february th team and i entered my appearance and filed a petition for those years and asked for thousand and eleven were also the subject of documentary evidence that dr lochner again through his own testimony said that he had already turned over to the revenue age in question matter of trial testimony when dr locker testified doing tax two thousand eight hundred and eleven documents corroborating documents to the revenue agent that's what he believes happened and that's what he testified to  in fairness the revenue agent said that that didn't happen and as a practical matter that may not make much difference in the bigger scheme of things because that's really the avenue of relief that we see i think judge wapner was quite correct sixteen provides a process by which that could happen which is in fact probably the most logistically feasible thing to do would be to bring this down to appeals where a subsequent examination of these of some kind of a confirmation note or anything from the revenue agent and in all fairness in the interest of full disclosure the revenue agents own case notes which were admitted as fifty five are  don't reflect that in cancer so in terms of where we're coming from here we would not base our case on any misconduct on the part of the i r s that i don't think we need to go  period of time or just for five months and what your best argument based on the rate is that those were either it has a disability or pension payments that would be excluded based on it because it means they are recurring  which he was entitled so there is no petition you don't have any documentation even over these years from the iris to be in late do they are not the iris excuse me the v a do they know issues that have any statements explaining have not seen such a statement from my client your honor and i'm not sure that that would actually answer the question but what we had argued at trial was that because these at least when we characterize what dr wacko was led to believe discouraged from issuing a form one thousand and ninety nine which we use is the explanation of why the government was unaware of these payments in the st place when i said the government i mean the i r s as opposed to the b s a why they want whatever because it was no  don't they're just giving money or some other category that i'm aware of they do seven payments it's not it's a separate category here a b a payments with that was found as i understand through the bank deposit analysis was that is that when you were seeing was in different amounts was that ongoing or it limited to a short period well the record is not crystal clear on this amount the innovation did say that there were a series of payments but it's not clear that they were the months that would help me but i could having trouble imagining what the payment could possibly be except for one of the two not taxable categories well the revenue as you did to look into that and trying to determine that and was not able service member on a monthly basis currently basis that's not that is taxable well it could have been related to the summons because it was in the same timeframe and those payments were not necessarily made all in lump sums all some of them were taxable because there was documentation that show that these amounts were added to the bank account yes it was part of the bank deposits analysis yes you and that creates that with the way this works is that creates an assumption that it's taxable income and then the burden is on the taxpayer to completely i had thought that there were sort of two categories the v a payments here that word issue one was a set of payments that was the settlement agreement but that there i had thought number of payments from the v a and taxpayer you know i had burned to do so did not provide substantiation of what was what so it was up to the revenue agent to try to figure that out without really any cooperation from lax player and he he tried to do that and tried to determine if there was evidence that these were nontaxable but he was under the name of foreigners and you do a bank deposit analysis for twenty his his retirement from the army so he would be getting some monthly payments would he not either disability or and well that's what you know the revenue agent asked the taxpayer that's  here would have been really logical and pretty easy thing to do is just asking well we did have information about the supplements and about the nontaxable but again we you know there was no cooperation waived all objections to the specific fitness but we did address this in tax court in the respondents answering brief after the trial and we went through each and and ten there were some of the payments for disability were won some payments they were make up payments in that period that then became monthly afterwards and i was a reason why some of that was in amounts that weren't recurring at that point was that these were made up making up for past periods that had not been covered for whatever reason dr lacked or had not received them so that explains i hope it was addresses the the nature of the payments in terms of of these out of state expenditures along with all of the rental that's sort of our point and i think we did raise it to the extent i know in the breeze we talked about that these were places where d no one because they've been described as being disorganized as really looked at them no one had to at this level certainly not the appellate level certainly the trial level should have to that's why we have an appeals office and that's why we have revenue agents so what we're the record shows that we did make that request before the court's final determination and were denied that's the reason they were not submitted because the court would not grant us leeway to open the administrative record to receive those