Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): employment records of eligible beneficiaries. See 26 U.S.C. § 9706(c). 13 . With respect to Hribar and Stewart, Appellants also argue that the SSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not following its prior practice of reversing assignments when the Combined Fund informs the SSA that the work at issue "was not covered earnings.” (Appellants’ Br. 36 n.5.) Appellants, however, have provided no legal authority to support their argument, nor have they elaborated upon the prior instances in which the SSA reversed an assignment based upon the Combined Fund’s lack of records showing a beneficiary's employment with an operator. (Id.) We will not address this perfunctory and underdeveloped argument. See Flanigan’s Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga., 242 F.3d 976, 987 n. 16 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F.2d 1569, 1576 (7th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument (B) holding that an issue is waived when a party fails to provide adequate citation to authority (C) holding party must support argument with legal authority (D) holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief but not in the argument section (E) recognizing that where a party fails to provide any authority for an argument we will presume that none exists
Output (English): holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief but not in the argument section