by united states against the taxpayer mr runner murder in order to reduce assessments to judgment mr rohner was a nonviolent has not felt tax returns for many years and he did not cooperate with the  return for nine hundred ninety seven which contained all zeros but requested i believe a three thousand dollars refund the i r s doesn't consider that a legitimate returned and even though we can argue whether or not  constitutes a return at all the statute allows sixty twenty allows the i r s to file a substitute for return when either the tax payer does not file a return or files an obviously false or fraudulent return under either of those intitled to follow a substitute for return based on the information that it had available to it from third parties thus to mr runners income so under those circumstances the i r s does not have access to all of the information assessment date particularly in ninety six and ninety seven and it's laid out very clearly in the government's brief below those assessments were timely because they say the ten years during which the i r s entitle to start collection proceedings starts from the date of the assessment of the amount of deficiency and what i think he's arguing with these transaction codes and so on is that it's actually the date that the iris filed the substitute for assessment or the filing of the substitute for return although at one point he did concede that the day of the filing the substitute for return does not start the statue of limitations running but i understand him now to be arguing that it does that's a zero assessment it does say on their assessment date it says zero but it makes no sense that you would start a set of limitations running on a zero assessment because there's there's no it suspect there's nothing to collect at a somewhat later date in fact for ninety six the assessment was made on april fourth of two thousand and one for ninety seven it was made on december eighteenth of two thousand and if you mean it's all laid out in our briefs but i'll just briefly go through it so the suit was filed in october of two thousand and twelve and because of the c b p hearing which added twenty two months and twenty days the statute of limitations would not have expired from ninety six until february of two and for ninety seven it would not november of two thousand and twelve we fall but in october of twenty two i don't really think there was a serious question about whether or not the suit was filed in a timely manner with respect to those two tax years and i don't believe that he's arguing that it was out of time with respect to the other years as far witness they questioned him and they were able to question him on redirect and only later did they say wait a minute we wanted to ask you more questions now up after praise it was testifying pursuant to a testimony authorization which is standard and which is permitted by statute and by the regulations because an officer of an employee of united states when testifying particularly as a taxpayer information has to be limited in what they can testify to if you look at regarding the tax assessment if that's true or worse the basis for your to do well your honor i'm not absolutely clear that he requested those documents to tell you the truth if you look at the record i think you'll see that that his requests for for documents were mostly very vague and very general request that we need to see and sort of bordering on the tax to fire language of we need to see every regulation and rule and you know policy that allows you to do this and the simple truth of the matter is that when someone does not follow returns the i r s is intitled to make these assessments based on the vailable information and then the burden shifts to the taxpayer to come in and say this is wrong and here's why i can show you information he made no effort whatsoever to show that the assessments were any correct he simply raise these vague general objections to it and saying no no no you know if and things for which there was no evidentiary support in the record he's talking about some kind of  not sure that he asked for that clearly but if you did i think the irises response would be look this is what we see we don't show income this is how much we think that you received and this is your tax and so then he has well for w two or ten and nine been issued they should have had to do so also i actually don't know the answer to your question dear honor i don't know why we wouldn't share that with the taxpayer particularly if a taxpayer comes in to cooperate and to investigate be there was no allegation of mistaken from surprise or excusable neglect to essentially based his motions on what he called new evidence but it was apparently these exhibits here he didn't prefer that he had assets sufficient to satisfy the judgment and therefore there was no need for filing a bond so we felt he didn't meet the requirements of that we don't think the district court in any way abused its discretion in denying any of those post judgment of the court make a ruling  us to the part of that document that asked for the information to which judge clay referred to which i was a asking kelso for the government about about