hundred ninety four tax return there is a special rule under internal revenue code section one sixty five little allows of the docks and in the year prior to the year in which  losses incurred if the casualty has occurred in a presidential lead player disaster area at this time for the northridge earthquake there was the san fernando valley was a presidential he does clear disaster area  mr palak attempted to utilize every invoke this rule and claim the loss on his nine hundred ninety three tax return due to the huge disruption of his properties his personal residence and his business in either nine hundred ninety three or one nine hundred ninety four and at this point this august has led to the point where we have gone through six different levels within the i arouse and the tax court with the net result at the present time thousand dollars the disparity here and the tremendous damage that it is caused because it has resulted largely from the fact that mr pollock is unable to pay the tax but that shouldn't change the result that he has the to do that there was there was there was an opportunity there are actually two separate issues here there is the opportunity to allege that the last should have been allowed in one thousand nine hundred three and that opportunity  the time that the appeal was heard by the i r s appeals officer he made it very clear that he would not consider any type of administrative remedy that would allow the loss in one thousand nine hundred three and at that point we abandoned that and said the the appeals officer erroneous lease fail to consider that because he was under an internal guideline basically to close out the case before the refund could be considered so that i think you know that's are offered to forward  so he made the offer to do that and that was in september i believe of two thousand and three and then he closed the case a couple of weeks later before we and then a week or so after that we actually did submit the returns to him and he did forward them for processing and they were processed and the result of that was is that even though the appeals officer indicated that he believed that the returns the nine hundred ninety four return could be could be offset against the one thousand nine hundred three balance that was still outstanding that when it got to the i r s people that were processed and ideas for return they said well we don't agree that you can file this now for ninety four and we don't agree that he agreed to do and so therefore you're out of luck on ninety four also so and then we have healed that decision which was i think the sixth level of review here and the appeal and a different appeals officer in a dealing with the r s that i don't think i've ever seen a case like this where the i r s has essentially an acknowledged loss of from a devastating result and they are just throwing up every ticky tack little possible argument that they possibly collections due process as i read the instructions on that were related to the way you could pay it off whether a levy on a lien on the house all right some other method and that was the purpose of that hearing and so they said you can't raise this case is that the reason that we are saying the liability is overstated has nothing to do with the tax that was asserted to the notice the deficiency were conceding that the notice of deficiency was correct and that we don't get the lo ninety three and then we are raising the standard issue that we're entitled to the therefore therefore we are entitled to the loss of ninety four and we're also entitled to carry that loss back to at least partial or dramatically offset the balance due so our argument in the in the collection due process case has nothing to do with the claim that would have a rose arisen from the notice of deficiency that we got the loss in ninety three  tax code provisions could be brought back and as a matter of practice it the i r s should have acknowledged at claymore that they normally would acknowledge their claim is that i correct that the director is not in any way tax court completely misread the petition in this case the petition in the case says we concede that the ninety three at the last is not allowable in ninety three and we want to offset it the order of decision says that we were there trying to challenge or trying to challenge the determination that we couldn't get the loss of ninety three that's absolutely wrong and based on that she kicked us out and that's really the issue in this case and the remedy of paying five hundred but procedure or through a refund and and there's always a refund remedy in the collection due process the purpose of the collection due process procedure is that if the tax isn't really do you don't have to you know i mean you know the taxpayer