case that motion will be granted to the parties in that case that is the motion to leave for leave to follow something mentally appendix are familiar with the facts and the cases sufficiently that we should just go directly to the point you want to emphasize to us in particular and with respect to the lighting system if you are not familiar with it when the yellow light goes on that means you are beginning to consume your rebuttal time first case is number zero five thirty one fifty six robertson against the department of the treasury mr ing she decided that the tax court proceedings for the regarding the one thousand nine hundred ninety ninety eight tax returns was going to operate as reza judicata as to the initial issue understatement of taxes and then we proceed in the hearing simply under the issue of willful at that time i raised the objection that if it was residue caught under the first element of understatement that it should be rescue caught under a claim the affirmative defense argument that was that that issue was resolved in the tax court correct i mean there was not that was not part of the tax court proceeding as i understood well the twenty percent they chose a twenty percent  finding from the tax court that rejecting an argument made by the government is that correct that's correct it's wednesday night playing preclusion is the opportunity to bring the fight but not doing flame preclusion but not issue preclusion right property fax they had a chance to bring that issue before it failed to do so so the precluding it precluded from bringing a subsequent proceedings that's also problematic is because it denied the opportunity to have  judges response that this we're going to proceed under the willfulness issue we didn't bring in some of the witnesses we could we could have brought in a preacher that gave them some documents who could have brought in some with she was the only person they could put into evidence any thing any indication any evidence of will be hate and she simply did daily thing that she put in as a matter of fact  appendix and she said it was simply negligence and that was ok we say accuracy related penalty of negligence that's all the evidence that was in before the administrative judge asked to willfulness and it was  the standard that the nine establishes it's got two clauses it starts off willful understatement unless such understanding is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect yes that would seem to suggest that willful neglect would be enough to find culpability is that your understanding in that language well one reading of that is it's a nonsensical statement it is confusing legal duty which is a criminal so they which i believe the cortef except unless it's totally and absolutely to the law will lead to question i wondered about i mean it's you make reference to the cumulative bullet and it does seem to commit them to a standard that would be the traditional willfulness leaving out any element of recklessness but what is you don't make an argument as to the binding effect of something in the cumulative bulletin and i'm wondering what authority you can point as to as to the binding what activists early statement and then i read that again yesterday i'm not sure that i understand it it may be referred as presidential but the bolton contains a lot of different information right internally and externally but it's not early on of the proceedings but what the judge acknowledged was a standard that it was a company instead of which is a criminal standard which means that they have to show both bellbottom understatement of tax liability which was you well but but the the term willful neglect is also been used in other tax statutes and supreme court referred to that statute that language change as meaning either a conscious intentional failure or reckless indifference so that would seem to be broader than the pump pony standard but more but more particularly as that in for our purposes i believe is the language of negligence which is not  you talking about seventy one seventy two a one the invasion statute though this is six six two this is this is a definition of negligence reckless disregard his negligence it is not w may please the court i want to start out by hopefully clarifying the record a little bit regarding collateral stoppel issue it is clear it is true as i pointed out in our brief that  the administrative judge referred to collateral stoppel on the understatement issues in one of her in one of her people in an area orders i think that was probably accurate she should've referred to  to the admissions of the parties because the document that she was referring to was not a judicial determination it was a settlement agreement and so it was for that reason that i abandoned one of the five  charges that the ministry judge found that was regarding charitable contributions because in the in the proceedings in the settlement agreement oh well it may be true that the charitable contributions were not properly stated and documented during the tax proceedings by the government conceded that he came up with other charitable deductions that offset the appropriate standard of their findings in the record that would support the charges and the most obvious finding is with regard to improperly duction for the rental no i don't think so your honor although i think in my brief i wasn't i think i got a little bit confused the also with the cd interest with regard to the cd interest on page twenty two of the joint appendix  there's a finding that mr robinson willfully failed to report the c v interest and in addition to that that bald statement that it was willful there are no number of subsidiary findings that i think  with regard to whether he had previously reported seeing the interest of income that's also a page twenty one and there's a specific finding that the tax gave him the publication seventeen if not the using on this the end of the preceding paragraph read the top twenty two and that to the extent that appellant can claim ignorance a law he is responsible for acting with reckless disregard of the law mean this this brings into play of course this whole question of whether reckless disregard are willful blindness and what have you why characterized that concept is part of willfulness as employed in this setting and the argument made based on palm pony oh is the answer to that  and i think it's a fair reading of palm pony oh that reckless disregard won't do it you have to have intentional my own nation they known legal duty so if you don't know the duty even if you've been reckless about not finding out in title to it legally entitled to mean difference for a guidance document your honor in the in the cite for your convenience is united states versus me corporation five thirty three us to eighteen that we jump cite statute makes no sense i'm saying that to read the statute and say it in other words i think you have to read the whole phrase together no you can read the whole phrase together it does make sense how would you read th simply not look into the matter you're expected to look into the rules when you prepare the taxes when you're in this year's employee at the i r s you don't simply guess you look at it and i think that congressman to require but let's sounds more like a negligence stand that's not one well i think it's a willful neglect and i think you can draw a distinction if you had some very complicated area of the law i think that you could you could try to make some kind of determination to make a mistake and maybe you made a negligent mistake but you could demonstrate that you you act it but what you're suggesting that with respect to three simple provisions of the road that you have an obligation to look at them but complex provisions of the code maybe not i i would submit to you that in the criminal basis for suspecting that something is the case but you intentionally avoid confirming that that's the case as opposed to the negligence standard which is when you just don't check even though you don't start from an assumption that something is the case i mean for example if i am asked by somebody to carry a suitcase across the border and i am told that they will give me ten thousand dollars if i do it and i decide to take the ten thousand dollars that i'm not going to look in the suitcase because i don't want to find out what's that's willful neglect our willful blindness not that somebody gives me something and an ordinary prudent person would look at it and i just don't happen to look at because i'm a and the reason first of all couldn't find mr roberts incredible but on top of that both mr roberts and his expert referred to a cover letter that the bank said later when they core of this aspect of the case the administrative judge starts off by saying that twelve o three b nine is the pump pone zero standard and from what i gather your argument is that really was a i would just want to touch briefly on the what process is required in order to find a violation i think that the statute does contemplate that however under whatever requires a showing some evidence of the knowledge of the law that's totally lacking in the record these are not the numbers that he put out on the tax returns are not numbers that he could not substantiate to some degree which son retort these are not when he said the the mortgage interest rate what the number he put down was the sum of the mortgage interest from the mortgage loan and also the interest from suddenly had to produce he was unable to because as i said the chaos going on to his home he had boxes and boxes over three hundred some boxes in his garage in which these were found and i notice we put into evidence the document that show that he'd wast ten boxes of cell value valued all ten boxes fifty five dollars as five fifty a box that sounds like receipts to me this was something not good after the fact it was created contemporaneously with think i'm trying well it's reasonable to think this was not he was not saying that well this box where i claim one hundred dollars for lost goods was where my receipts were so these it fits in  reasonable that this is to believe sure of of something which sounds wholly made up phony documents things which are patently and i'm demonstrably false there are none of that there's none of that evidence and here what do you do you say to place reference to the rental expenses and the finding with respect to that issue at least as the mr judge said that he the appellant overstated rental expenses to of the law that's the burden that's evidence or standard they have to prove that he knew the law which is an unknown violation they didn't show that he knew the law it's all presume very much like it was just occurred here when he said you get a turbo tax provide