refund of corporate income taxes pursuant to the limited exception to what i will refer to as the no refund rule that set out at five twenty one point one zero five l of the department's emergency  regulations and we're dealing with the two thousand and three amnesty not this latest amnesty that was we just experienced in two thousand and ten of them that thank you and i would suggest that unlike the path that the taxpayers followed in both the metropolitan life and marriott international cases which have been decided by the appellate court and now are on their way to the illinois supreme court the taxpayer in this case did exactly what the department asked it to do in its emergency regulations now the department of revenue's administrative law judges recommend dacian for disposition which was accepted by the director of the partner revenue concluded that the  taxpayer had failed to file its refund claim within three years of the date of the original return filing or within one year of the date that the embassy payment was made that's the statute limitations that's found in section nine eleven a of the illinois income tax act we do not dispute that that is factually accurate before we do that i think there is some of this you about the standard under which we should determine this case and i i was curious as to your position that it's a mixed question of fact in law when the facts really seem to be without initially what i'd like to say with all due respect is i don't really care because when i answer till i think i think i think it should be a don't know the review but on the other hand i believe that the department's decision is clearly erroneous go in its papers the department argues that in contrast to the crest question presented in the american airlines case which is the case that we've hung our head on a case involving application of a statute of limitations to novo review first what the department says here and i quote the factual component here cannot be readily separated from the legal interpretation the question here is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard conway involves and of course beg to differ we think the rule of law is in dispute here the issue before this court is the proper interpretation at least i believe the issue before this court is the proper tours interpretation of the only income tax ac interpretation of nine eleven b that's the statute of limitations that applies to the final federal changes in the right of the department's rule and its emergency rules at five twenty one one zero five l and what's happened here is the department is saying that the limitation in nine eleven be which i will explain in detail that the limitation in nine eleven b is applicable here in that we did not need it  am going to suggest is when you read five twenty one one zero five zero which help we cite in detail for you in conjunction with the statute of limitations at nine eleven b which is the statute limitations pertaining to final federal changes that we are entitle to our refund we've met the conditions set forth for the limitation do not apply let me just ask you this if i can  underpayment or rather our under statement rather dramatic understatement of income from the first return and your client sought to take advantage of this amnesty program which would relieve it of out with patients and i can only presume that there was some indication that there was an audit calming or that there was some claim income for the taxable year had not paid over a period of years the amount that it would have to pay if that under payment was accurate or  underreporting with accurate and sought to relieve itself of what would normally be statutory penalties and interest by taking advantage of this amnesty program and made an estimate of what the under reporting was for purposes of the good faith requirement of the amnesty program and that turned out to be either an overstatement of what that deficiency was in the reported income or because of favorable negotiations with internal revenue service and really doesn't matter which of that it was turned out to be i did a good faith estimate of turned out to be in excess of what the negotiated amount was with the internal revenue service so in this this instance the actual amount of income was in excess of the amount an initially reported and so the federal action didn't result in a refund of being due on the taxes paid as a result of your first payment and your first reporting of income if you are seeking to acquire this to a estimate was pretty accurate because exley is saved yourself six or seven thousand dollars on the on the power of the because if the penalty gone into effect you you would have paid like forty eight  anything the internal revenue service to death for us but i agree with what you've said in principle but let me correct a few things if i believe you when the amnesty program began in november of two thousand three the taxpayer was already under audit by the internal revenue service and what the emergency rules of the embassy program in the emergency rules were designed to do was to entice a taxpayer who was under audit by the internal revenue service but yet not had a final determination to make a good faith estimate of what it believed the final federal taxable income would be for the taxable year in this case it's a at five twenty one one zero five l was make a good faith estimate file your return pay the additional tax and then when the internal revenue service is audit is final and you have a final determination if that final determination results in less tax than you estimated then you will get a refund well that i understand is your position mr marcus the problem is as often as the problem is we look at things that literally it doesn't say that and the question of where this court as i see it is whether it means that or not well but i think the rule does say that and let me quote from the rule it says i'm again this is five twenty five  for purposes of participating in the amnesty program only so it's limited to the embassy program a taxpayer may file an amended return reporting a federal change prior to receiving final notification from the internal revenue service that change has occurred are both participants in the embassy program may not seek refunds a limited exception to the rule would be permitted for taxpayers whose refund claims are based upon final determinations of the internal revenue service or the federal courts that's what the rule says in the way that i interpret that rule and the way i would hope this court would look at the rule is that the taxpayer here was invited granted in order to avoid double interest and penalties no question about that to a voluntary program i would that characterize a program is voluntary when you have double interest and penalties hanging over your head which can be very significant you have a sledgehammer hanging over your head so i question how voluntary the program really was and you can see what's happened in the marriott and the met life cases they chose not to participate they were in the midst of a federal audit or had a federal audit that began after amnesty closed and now they've paid the additional tax and they've been assessed double interest and penalties and again that's what the program was designed to avoid it was designed to encourage you to make a payment but if you were wrong it was going to provide a refund and i would also suggest that on the flip side of this coin internal if we had made an estimate and let me just throw some numbers out as an example let's assume we'll keep it very simple that we reported a hundred dollars in taxable income on a regional return and on our amended return or what i call their first amended return in our papers which was filed in conjunction with amnesty we reported an additional fifty dollars in income and paid the additional tax well that also could have happened as we could have been wrong and understated what we thought the change was going to be and if any internal revenue service had come along and heads assess let's say or determine their federal tax bill income was two hundred dollars would a build additional tax on the difference between the one fifty and the two hundred and we would have been required to pay double interest and penalties on that additional amount but in this case you paid the additional internet effect is he didn't get away with a two hundred percent correct which was we broke even which was the business of the program so you still got a benefit and you're saying here entitle to something more but you're not really under the rule i think the rules i will be paying you would have a double going on if there is an anticipation built into that that there is a good possibility that there will be increased tax d following the audit and that as a result of that the section after subsection asked to be read as the what the final determination of the i r s or a federal court is yes that would be correct because again tax payers were in order to avoid the imposition of double interest and penalty on whatever the additional income was determined by the internal revenue service that was required to be reported to the state of illinois they were encouraged by this rule i would suggest they were encouraged to over estimate the federal change that they expected taxpayers now with there's going to be an adjustment to their federal tax bill income isn't usually not a surprise so read this taxpayer and what other taxpayers may have attempted to do with this tax payer attempted to do was to over estimate it federal taxable income is finally determined by the internal revenue service or if there is no double at all correct and again in light of the rule at five twenty one one zero five l it was anticipated that once the federal change was finalized which is what occurred here that they were filed in connection with the reporting requirements under five zero six b of act which requires you to file a final federal change within one hundred twenty days which the administered law judge concedes that they did and you have two years in which to file your refund claim and the administrative law judge c cedes that the refund claim which was the amended return filed percent to five o six b was timely filed so the whole issue here is i think you're suggesting is whether or not this limitation applies that's really i think the bottom line here what about the timeliness of it i would suggest that the department in this counsel for the state talks about the fact that you had basically had a ninety day period of time in which that would have been satisfied i would say that that's not even relevant to this particular case because the way that the statute is structured we have two separate paths depending on whether we're talking about an assessment or claim as either a result of an elementary audit or a claim that's being filed by the taxpayer which is unrelated to a federal change and that's nine eleven a which is the three years from the date the return is filed or one year from the dat payment of the tax so that's the period you're talking about justice epstein the pardon is suggesting that we could have filed within the allotted time but i'm suggesting that that's not a requirement the requirement was that we report within one hundred twenty days of the finalization of the federal change which is what we did and then we're dealing with a federal change it's nine eleven b that applies to claims for refund that are attributable to federal changes and now what the a l j says and what the director confirmed was again we timely filed a refund claim but they're saying we're not entitled to actually receive the refund we're requesting because the limitation in nine eleven be lockset refund is not read that limitation is really designed to do states have two approaches to federal changes some states would suggest and this is by statute that when there's a federal change the entire return is opened so not only can the state assess additional tax with respect the additional federal tax bill income that's found to exist through the internal revenue service as audit but what can also happen is that the department of revenue in a state that follows this pattern can go into the return as originally filed even larry let's say the three year statute has run and they can reopen that return and make any other adjustments that they want in the state of illinois on the other hand what this really taishan is designed to do is merely limit the additional tax that can be assessed to the amount of additional tax attributable to the federal change the only department of revenue cannot go back into a return where a statute has already run where the three year statute has already run and make adjustments to that return other than the adjustment that would be required by the federal change and they can only assess the additional tax attributable to the additional federal tax bill income and i might add they have two years in which to do that so the statute of limitations with respect to federal changes is on equal footing assessment two years refund claim two years and again it brings us to the limitation that is set forth in the the rule in the emergency excuse me in the emergency room as at five twenty back into the administrative law judge a decision which is a friend by the director you'll find that again he says we're outside the three year one your schedule limitations that we find in nine eleven anyway but then he does say that we are timely in reporting our federal change with respect to five zero six beat one hundred twenty days and then within the two years in which we're required to file the refund claim and what the department is attempting to do here  what i would suggest that the department is attempting to do here is ignore the rule that it itself pushed through its emergency rules with respect to refunds attributable to federal changes and what they're saying is that because what i've characterized as the first amended return in our papers because that wasn't a return that was required to be filed if you look at five o six b it talks in terms of final federal changes required to be filed and what the department is arguing here is that the first federal return we file excuse me the first amended return that we filed in order to report our estimate of what we believe the federal change would be was not required and therefore it can be ignored for purposes of determining the limitation in nine eleven b so what they're doing is they're looking at the final federal change and our original return and as you've indicated there's an increase in federal tax of all income there isn't a decrease but if you go back to five twenty one one zero five l i think what the department did here and what i would suggest that the department did here is it said for amnesty purposes only no other purpose no as for any other purpose you can't file an amended return that isn't a final reporting a final change but for embassy purposes we're going to allow you to file a federal return excuse me a n l annoying amended return reporting a federal change even though it isn't final so we're going to allow you to do that and by allowing you to do that we are going to treat that change as if it was final but only for purposes for allowing you to file a refund claim if you've overstated the federal tax bill income on that amended return and i think the rule absolutely supports that there be no other reason for the rule of the department's interpretation of the rule in light of the statue limitations that's applicable to federal changes would render the rule in applicable in every situation and i don't think that you can do that i mean you have to give the rule meaning and the only way that you can give the rule meaning is to look at it take into account the estimate that's made on the first taxpayers first amended return compare that to the final federal tax bill income that's reported on the second amended return and there you have the decrease in federal tax income that generates the refund that the taxpayer is seeking here under the amnesty program you actually filed what you're calling your first amended return that's correct and that was for one hundred forty million and change is a very that you could time you also paid a hundred thousand dollars in tax four hundred forty nine thousand nine hundred ninety four thousand in texas that would be three hundred forty nine thousand and change another hundred thousand change correct to three hundred forty nine thousand was paid with the original return and the on the first amended return there was an additional hundred thousand dollars to their four hundred forty nine thousand nine hundred ninety four was paid at the invitation of the state to avoid is justice that she has said the imposition of the twenty percent correct penalty in case you were wrong that's correct ok and then later the federal government comes in and says oh wait about wait a minute it's really one hundred thirty million five hundred ninety six and eighty so your actual in a tax liability is three hundred  submitted the amnesty papers correct misty invited papers correct but i think what you have to do is you have to separate these returns when you give the consideration break and look at what was paid with the original return bright and then look what was paid with the first amended return is the additional one hundred thousand dollars right so the three forty nine three twenty four was paid with the original work and that is not an issue and you but your actual tax liability is three hundred  these through the embassy program which i remember they aggressively promoted they asked for this money in the s you file a return and you did it all and with your good faith estimate  you pay too much but you're right here me i'd rather you keep the money correct right and they're basing that on nine eleven be the limitation the nine eleven be in you're asking us to look at nine eleven be in conjunction you can conclude that that was really the best characterization of the issue but ultimately slid back up for a second whether whatever standard of review applies whether it's clear error or to novo we don't believe that that would make any is best viewed as a mix question of fact in law because you're looking at whether facts satisfy statutory standards you're looking at the legal effect of a given state of facts no you for that's the case then when would you ever have a purely legal question and i think there's a lot of shading about which things when you're looking at facts under the light of a lens of a statutory standard when is that clearly erroneous and when is that just a question statutory construction if you're with us this is what happens but we don't know how to interpret what happened under these statutes isn't that purely a question of well i think here the factual component is really with the legal question putting it on the clear air side something that's more like a pure question of law is you know what is shall mean in the statute here i think you're looking at whether the facts there was an original return there was an audit there's a good faith estimate to those facts satisfy the legal standard of section nine eleven before an overpayment based on a federal change i think that this gets into questions that are close and although could be viewed as a question of law the better characterization is this is applying facts to a statutory standard it's not that different from  situation for example in you know the belvedere case one of the only supreme quick court cases about clear air looking at whether you know is this a matter that involves hours wages and conditions of employment because that's what the statutory standard is so here you know they base this asked me that they had a good faith attorney does that satisfy is this overpayment  of illinois tax based on a federal change to those facts meet that standard so i think it could be viewed is best viewed as a clearer question ultimately if the court views it did no there is still a principle that courts typically accord significant weight and deference to an agency's interpretation of the statute that it ministers we cite cases to that effect in the brief  taxpayer has said well that shouldn't apply the difference and apply the context about statute of limitations question but the cases that they cite i don't support that they cite a couple of cases that  t discuss deference to agency decisions their statue of limitations cases but they don't discuss deference one where the other and there was no need to because those cases both affirm of the department's decision so ultimately the statute of review excuse me standard of review i think it's best characterized as clear error and that it shouldn't make any difference to the outcome and that the director's determination that the interpretation of the statute should be given is that once the tax payer accept the invitation to voluntarily avail itself of the amnesty program it is required of course to pay in the good faith estimate of what the taxes are and under your reading it appears to me that it will less serendipitous estimate the amount of tax that is due the amount of their under payment is then assess double penalty if they over estimate the amount that is due then they are on and they're not entitled to seek a refund from that overpayment if i'm wrong please tell me where you're wrong on the last part they are entitled to seek a refund from the overpayment there's no question here that they're entitled to seek refunds from overpayments and they swear the taxpayers sort of muddying the issue here a bit because of course they can  refunds that's the point of the rule that we're talking about this one a five zero zero it allows them in circumstances when they're under a federal audit to seek a refund the only question here is w have satisfied that statue of limitations under those circumstances they could have says fied the statute of limitations by proceeding under five eleven that one avenue to request an extension from the department i think if the department didn't grant the extensions and that was the only avenue available to them that my post some even some type of due process question so they can proceed by asking for an extension by each side during the audit and the i r s simply had not made its determination and the taxpayer is waiting for that determinat and him one year periods by aren't you really saying that the only option would have been to ask the department for an it if it's not written it could happen yes but presumably people who are finding themselves in this situation would would look at the statutes and would look at the regulations to say what are my options and  there's always room for creative thinking but are we to say that if they want creative creative enough to have thought of that themselves that somehow they are for clothes from pursuing this is no u turn i would say a lot of creativity was required to look i know you have three choices a b or c and a and c are the choices that generally apply in most circumstances so this idea that unless you read everything you're saying we understand this can happen and so if you've taken advantage of this amnesty program which we reference in subsection l and you just don't have your answer yet when you get your answer you can fire and when you get your answer you there were ways of filing a timely refund when they had their answer in this case there was a basically a ninety day window right in this case there was a ninety day window but  back after the i r s audit is completed we are requesting a refund of that amount they didn't do that here their first amended return isn't a refund claim it's saying we owe you more available to them to seek a timely refund and one was they couldn't proceed under a because they have three months left even without the three months left within that one year period they could filed a protective refund claim saying if at the end of the federal audit we are owed money you know we would like a refund without knowing the exact number yet and the first amen return here doesn't count as that because it wasn't a refund claim nothing in the first amendment returned them statutory obligation to file for a refund if they want one and nothing on that first amendment returned says refund under a either you know with the exact number because the i r s has done or some type of protective claim saying if we end up being any money as a result of the  final determination that it was no because they didn't find anything that was a recall because what you're saying here what this rule says is it's going to be a good faith estimate of what is determined after the i faith estimate that we may be overestimated and if so we'd like our money back is it all seen as l though isn't telling you anything about timel ss and when and how they have to ask for a refund and they have to know it doesn't excuse complying with any a political statute of limitations it's implicit in l that if you participate in the program and you're in the situation of federal audit it's saying we're going to give an exception to our no refund rule and we're going to allow the us taxpayers to say to a refund but the refund still has to be timely  actually a another regulation under that reinforces that by calling attention to the fact that this is a tolling of the statutes of limitation so what you still have to look to is what statutes of limitations apply here and if they can't take advantage of nine eleven be by the plain language of section nine eleven and there isn't anything that the department can do about that the department doesn't have the authority to override the plain statutory language and nothing in that regulation you know says for example oh taxpayers if you up the estimate happens to be too high you can on a secret refund under nine eleven be despite the statutory restrictions that would prevent that so you still need back on the two statutes of limitation that would apply the do apply in most circumstances nine eleven see which is this waiver provision which is frequently used i mean the legislature has provided the procedure and you know it's there it's a big part of the statute of limitations so there's nothing odd about being in the situation where waivers are requested  they didn't request a waiver here and it was nine eleven a which is the one year period was available to them here and it even if the federal audit had not been concluded within that one year period it would have been available had they filed some type of refund claim saying when the photo is done if we you know you know if we're entitled to money back you know please please give us money a refund claim as i say the first amended return was not a refund claim because nothing on their said we would like a refund it just says we owe you more money let's look at the statutory language of six nine eleven it's not it's not making a claim for a refund when you look at the first amendment or turn it doesn't we just warm up just to get this here i mean that couldn't get that could be the end of the day there's nothing there that says we would like a refund down the road th the they are allowed to seek refunds and the defining part i would say there's not a lot of dividing involved here because there is a statute that sets out here's what the alternatives are and basically what you've argued is that in relation to see is that certainly when there is a i mean your implicit argument is certainly when there is an audit going forward we would we the department would grant this extension yes because it would be wrong not to under these circumstances so if that's the case when someone is making a good faith estimate payment based on an audit doesn't it seem unduly harsh to say if you haven't done what we would certainly grant because everyone knows you can't make a final determination until the i r s is finished but you've lost the chance to get a refund and you have to keep in mind that th department can only act within the strictures that are placed upon it by statute and the statute says there's this waiver procedure it doesn't say the department can just ignore the waiver procedure if it would have granted the waiver anyway it says taxpayers you have to get this extension of the tax payer and the department have to enter into a written agreement and that just didn't happen here  they said mother may i in terms of the extension you would have been certainly willing and able to give them their money back because they didn't say mother may i even though you knew there wasn't all that going on which is the reason this amnesty program existed in the first place that somehow they're not entitled to their money back they were calling mother may i in this case is is tied to a pretty important legal principle which is that the department cannot outside mystery of agencies are creatures that are created by the legislature and they only act within the strictures of the legislature if they couldn't do it they can't just say oh well that was an oversight that was a mistake it  well they paid the hundred thousand dollars they wanted forty three back they owed fifty seven at the end of the day after the federal audit they owe this additional fifty seven thousand dollars that's undisputed so they would have had double interest in penalties and saloon the point i keep making dam taxpayer said this is prejudicial we're being punished for participating in the program and i just think it's important to to keep in mind that the program they chose to participate in and they receive significant benefits from participating in the program and they would have received more ok if they had filed for the refund in a timely way in accordance with the statutory options open to them counsel you're saying that they couldn't file for an exception exemption and they didn't and they didn't file for a refund in a timely manner but i'm looking at nine eleven and it says in general except which tells me that b is an exception to a and then what would be the point of talking about a claim for refund within two years after the date the notification was due and of the taxpayer's income blah blah blah as a result of a federal change if you didn't expect that the application for the refund was going to come within the time limits of nine eleven at the point of having nine eleven b if it's not going to count for anything after you get the federal figure the the the i r s comes out with the dollar amount if you get that you have to give the state notification nine eleven unique overpayment of illinois tax based on the alteration required to report under so six overpayment that you're talking about does not include the embassy program correct when you say they and where does it say that in the except ira so are you saying that this only counts if there is and if the federal government says you know more money than you estimated in your good faith estimate no i'm saying you can only get that nine eleven be requires an overpayment of illinois tax based on a federal change and actual federal the change being the federal so the good faith estimate doesn't count and so i'm asking you again where this is a except if you overpaid because the embassy program doesn't use it except if you overpay because of the amnesty program but you don't have here is an overpayment based on a changes that need to be reported are changes that are those that are in a federal income tax return the estimate was never in a federal income tax return it was never a number that the i r s never saw the estimate it was never federally reported income the estimate number that they came up with and it was never determined by the i asked either federal income and the exact plain language of nine eleven  limits the refunds you can only get a refund if there is an overpayment of the only tax giving effect to based on the alteration that's required to be reported federal change you don't have an overpayment of illinois tax here because they actually own more money after the federal audit just based on the federal audit under paid their own  eventually of course as we know there was an overpayment but that was based on a good faith estimate the reason it doesn't fit it doesn't fit the statutory language so i answered your question well as this catch twenty two to keep father and me through there is no patch twenty two because it means this provision doesn't apply nine eleven b doesn't apply because of the statutory language in the department can't ignore the plain statutory language just wasn't based on a federal situation where you with your interpretation of the amended return making the good faith estimate that if you file that and don't either have a circumstance where the i r s audit is determined within the one year period or a situation where you have  filed for a speculative refund based upon the supposition that your good faith estimate was an over estimate then you really are only left with asking the department for the extension yes within that one year period if you don't file this protective refund the other thing you can do within that one year period is request the extension and so what that does is basically ignores the reality of the fact that these estimates are going to be not right on the money really ever  see they should say here is our good faith estimate here is our money and by the way file separate request for a refund because the amount of money we've just paid used too much and  file something that says refund this asking for the money back so that's more explicit in the two thousand and ten regulations too just to just eliminate possible confusion about this those regulations more directly tell taxpayers you can go ahead and do this excuse me if you asked for a sort of preventive refund could you just say we're asking your state we're asking for our money back but we don't know how much do you give a specific amount i believe that they could always just asking for a refund a blanket raef and their first amended recurrences not asking for a refund it was just saying here's a check for some more money something about that request a refund so the paperwork that you supply asking for a refund doesn't have a specific amount on it it's really didn't ask for a refund within that one year period they didn't ask for a refund and still saying if you did your preventive refund scenario is just accepting his asked on the day that you file your good faith estimate you pay your money and oh by the way there's a third piece of paper that says oh and we want to refund if we want to paying too much you do not have to say how much that we fund is for you don't have to put the state on notice what you're asking recall and we've had a lot of one just come at if i may on a few things that my able ponytails advance first of all with respect to the standard of review the american airlines case which deals with a statute of limitations issues is pretty is an issue is pretty specific it says a statute of limitations is reviewed to novo and it's specifically says that deference is not given to the department with respect to this question about nine eleven a and waiver i think it's a red herring first of all there is no such thing as a protective amended return in the ol noice statute when you file an amended return it's on form a level twenty x that's an amended corporate income tax return and it requires that you put a number on that return so you have to seek a specific refund you just cannot come down to the bottom of that return and fill in a number there are three columns on that return you start with what was originally reported you make your adjustments and you come up with the revised taxable income and expenses and you come down to a tax figure so you have to file something you just and again there's no such thing in the statute as a protective refund claim and i would venture to guess that if you were to file a protective refund claim and put a dollar on the return just to protect yourself and then at some point later to try and amend that refund claim to increase it to what you thought your refund would be the department would challenge that they would tell you that you can't amend their return  with respect to excuse me the federal audit and this issue about you know waivers and returns again if i think if you read l in conjunction the income tax act that deal with federal changes and that's five zero six b and nine eleven b i think that answers your question it seems to me that nine eleven a does not apply to a federal change and the fact that this first amended return isn't a refund that's a red herring also the first amended return filed in this case was not meant to be a refund it was meant to comply with the amnesty and report this good faith estimate of what the taxpayer thought its income was going to b it's the second amended return that is the refund claim and i submit that that was filed in accordance with the statute it is timely the o j found that it was timely and again it just reflects his opinion which is the opinion that this court reviews looks to the limitation under nine eleven b and i would also suggest that that limitation has been complied with you cannot ignore her that first amended return it was invited by the department of revenue department says give us your best effort estimate what you think your federal tax bill income is going to be under l and we will give you a refund if you are incorrect and any taxpayer any corporate taxpayer that is in the midst of a federal audit would understand that the statute of limitations that applies is and five zero six b and nine eleven b they would never look to nine eleven a because it just doesn't apply it applies to illinois audits and refund claims that do not arise as a result of a federal change and then with respect to section of the regulations which says that the regular statute of limitations will apply it does but it depends on what you're talking about because if you go to section i could keep my letter straight there is a section in the rules that deals with eleanor a on its and it basically goes it's k as i recall and a face will go through the same process if you're under illinois audit during the amnesty period it invites you to estimate your expected elena income and report it and it says that if you've overpaid the department can give you a refund or a credit the regular statute of limitations applies to that that's nine eleven eg if you're dealing with a federal audit it's nine eleven b that you have to look to and if you look at them it says regular statute applies with course the regular statute applies but the regular statute when we're dealing with a federal change is nine eleven b it is not nine eleven a it's i think with that i'll just wrap up i'm sure you've heard enough and i thank you for your attention you've both mom for me it's very good and interesting arguments and very on the