[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Our next case for argument is 24-125 to AD Global Fund versus United States.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Mr. Mather, please proceed whenever you're ready.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
I'm Steve Mather, appearing for the plaintiff at Appellant, North Hills Holding.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
The sole issue in our appeal is the meaning of a cross-reference in a statute.

[00:00:32] Speaker 00:
In General Revenue Code Section 6229D explains the effect of an FPAH on the... Well, can we start... Let's talk about standing.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
Who do you contend continues to have Article III injury sufficient to establish a standing in this litigation?

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
There are, to our knowledge, there are partners that have not resolved their matters.

[00:01:01] Speaker 00:
Okay, I'm looking for names.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
I don't have a name.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
Don't you think you need to identify people that have injury in order to satisfy Article 3 standing?

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
I don't think that's the way the statutory scheme for standing works in a case like this.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
The answer is no, you don't need to identify individuals.

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
I think the IRS is the one that needs to identify that all partners have said.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
Do you have a case that supports it?

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
I think your friend in his brief has cases that kind of say something different.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
Well, the issue is different because of the context of this case and the nature of the proceeding.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
So in a TEFRA partnership case, there is a case involving the partnership, and there is a representative plaintiff.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
By statute in section 6226, all of the partners in the partnership, whether they hold a direct interest, pardon me, or an indirect interest, are considered to be parties in the proceeding.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
The only way they really become non-parties in the proceeding, the only practical way, is if they've entered into a settlement with the IRS.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
And only the IRS knows if those settlements have occurred.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
We can't know, as the representative plaintiff, because we don't have contact with all of the partners.

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
Only the IRS has that information.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
Don't you have to have at least one partner who is aggrieved still?

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
Yes, yes.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
Well, who is it?

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
Because on page 483 of the appendix, I see where you all represented in the joint status report.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
Here's a direct quote.

[00:02:49] Speaker 03:
David Greenberg and William Goddard, the only purported partners in AP Global Fund who wish to litigate the remaining issues in this case.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
I understand that you all stipulated those are the only two partners who are agreed to want to go forward with this.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
So now those people are out, so why is there still standing?

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
Well, that representation that was made by the prior counsel in the case was based on what the IRS told him.

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
Um, so the, it kind of doesn't matter what it was based on.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
It was a joint stipulation to the court, right?

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
And we bind people to those things when you stipulate to something.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
I mean, well, I mean, it's essentially, you're, you're, you're seeking to stop us, I suppose, from, you know, from denying that representation.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
But then it's very clear in the, uh, in document number 106 in the declaration of Mr. Patterson.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
who made that representation.

[00:03:48] Speaker 03:
Is there like a page in the JA you could cite me to?

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
Joint appendix, I'm not sure it's in the excerpts, but Joint Appendix 534 and 535, which I don't think was cited in the brief and isn't included in the summary.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
So what does that say?

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
It says that I was told by the IRS that every other partner is settled.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
Well, we don't have those pages in my appendix.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
No, we don't have any.

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
But if every other partner settled, then how could there be a standing?

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
But we understand that not to be true and and and there's a mechanism Is there a is there a you understand that not to be true based on what fact because you've got to establish standing So you can't just say I understand I was told everybody settled but now I understand not to be true without explaining How do you understand it not to be true who for example has not settled?

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
How do you understand there are people that haven't settled out?

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
What where is your proof?

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
I have been told, and there was no evidentiary proceeding on this issue in the claims court, but I have been told that there are partners that have not settled.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
And I've been told that by the person that has hired me to represent in this case.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
And this is a representative plaintiff case.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
And the way the process is designed to prove otherwise is for the IRS, when they've entered into a settlement,

[00:05:17] Speaker 00:
to inform the representative partner that the settlement is innate.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
And that didn't happen.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
And that's in the claims court's rules.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
My problem is that you have to establish standing, not the other way around.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
And you have to establish standing.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
And you all represented that there were only two people that wanted to litigate this that were remaining.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
And now we all agree those two people are no longer relevant.

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
And now you're telling me that you have come to understand there are other people, but that's not evidence.

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
And you have direct representations to the court to the contrary of what you now tell me you understand, which your understanding as attorney argument is not evidence.

[00:05:56] Speaker 03:
So I don't know how to get over the standing hurdle because you had a burden to come forward.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
You could have put in a declaration at the district court or at the trial court by anyone, right?

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
Who's a partner who has standing.

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
you could have identified a person.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
It seems like there's stuff you could have done.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
Well, there may be stuff that I could have done.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
But again, our position is that it's the government's responsibility to prove the lack of standing because of the nature of this type of a case.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
Mr. Mathis, how are you injured?

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
What's the injury you're complaining about?

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
Well, we are the party that's representing any partner that still remains in the case.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
That's the way the cases are structured.

[00:06:35] Speaker 04:
So you don't know if anyone's remaining or not, do you?

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
What?

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
You don't know if anyone's remaining or not.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
I'm told there is somebody remaining.

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
But you don't know.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
I don't.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
I don't know for a fact.

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
You're correct.

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
Only the IRS knows.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
Only the IRS knows.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
And there's a mechanism for the IRS to tell us, and they didn't do it.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
So you have no injury.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
I am told there is still a partner that has not settled, and that partner has a potential injury.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
And so as a representative of the partner class... Do you agree that that's speculative in nature?

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
I don't know the circumstance of every individual partner, and I'm not required to.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
It's a question of it may be or may not be.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
I don't know for a fact.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
So that would be speculative in nature.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
It is, I'm relying on representations that have been made to me, yes.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
So if that's speculative, that's what I'm doing.

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
But again,

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
it's the government that hasn't followed the rules here, and then they're claiming the benefit of arguing that there's no standing because they haven't informed us of the information that only they know as required by the claims court's rules.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
They're not the only ones that know it.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
Presumably this mysterious partner we're talking about would know it too.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
Yes, yes.

[00:08:01] Speaker 03:
You represent the partners, and there are individuals within that group that you represent who know whether they settled or didn't settle.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
So I'm really perplexed.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
I don't have a name.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
Pardon me.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
I didn't personally speak to the partner.

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
There are many partners in these cases, sometimes dozens or hundreds,

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
or hundreds of partners in the case?

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
Not in this particular case, but in this category of cases.

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
Do you know how many partners are involved in this case?

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
There are, I understand, at least 20 partners.

[00:08:50] Speaker 00:
Eight partners that hold direct interest and a number of partners that hold interest through those direct interests.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
We believe the vast majority have settled.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
But not all.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
But do you appreciate that the speculative nature of what you're saying doesn't satisfy the constitutional rules with regard to Article 3 standing?

[00:09:12] Speaker 00:
Well, I think it's a question of whose job it is to show the standing.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
And I understand most of the cases.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
It's your job to show that you have standing, right?

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
I don't believe in the context of this case it is my job.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
I think it is the government's job to show that all partners have settled.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
Because that's what the rule requires them to do.

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
It's a constitutional obligation that must be standing in a criminal case.

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
And our case law is very clear that the standing is on your shoulders.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
But again, this is a very specific type of case, which has its own procedure, its own statute, its own procedure, and the claims court's rules for establishing standing.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
And the government didn't follow it.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
And so it's our position that it's not our burden when the government hasn't followed the rules to help satisfy the standing requirement.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
With respect to the underlying merits, again, there's a reference in Section 6229D to the Section 6229A period that is affected by an FPAP.

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
The government has argued that the reference should actually read that it's a reference to the period referenced in Section 6229A, somehow based on case law that was developed 15 to 20 years after these statutes were enacted.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
I see my time is out, so I'll reserve for rebuttal.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
Very good.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
Mr. Sheehan.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:11:04] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
I'm Anthony Sheehan.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
I represent the United States.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
I think the court has zeroed in on the key issue.

[00:11:11] Speaker 02:
So why don't you respond to your friend's, what seems to be his basic argument, that there were rules that you need to follow, and you didn't follow those rules.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
And therefore, in this particular weird, unusual context,

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
the obligation was on you to just, I close it.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Can you tell us about the rules and why you, do you think you violated the rules but that shouldn't matter in standing or do you think there was no violation of the rules or what?

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
Standing, we start with, you know, it's Article 3 and the burden is normally on the person alleging standing here.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
All of the, any of these settlements happened

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
you know, probably back in the 2000s, long time ago.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
And whatever happened with that's not in the record.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
What it comes down to, though, is that our opponent has the burden under Article III.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
And they represented they were in communication with these partners, that there was communication there.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
Who are you talking to?

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
The government repeatedly asked for a name.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
The Court of Federal Claims put out a show cause order.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
And no name was forthcoming.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
All we were asking for was a name.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
Give us a name, we'll go back, we'll check.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
If that person hadn't settled, the issue goes away.

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
So the easiest way to proceed with this was simply, if North Hills is talking to people, if Mr. Mathers not talking to him, but his client, whoever that is, is talking to him, who is this person?

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
We've got the records, we could have checked it out.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
How many, what's the scope of this class here, or this group?

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
How many partners are we talking, how many potential people are we talking about?

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
We know that, in this record, we know of at least two direct partners.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
There are entities, North Hills and JFC2.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
There are indirect partners, individuals who are actually paying the taxes underneath them.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
The IRS has informed our trial council that, that the, that

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
all the individual tax-paying partners had settled.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
That's what the IRS has told us.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
Now, if there is somebody who hasn't, if something got missed in there, again, just give us a name.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
That's the simplest thing.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
Who are you talking to?

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
Identify somebody.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
We'll check it out.

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
But that did not happen.

[00:13:33] Speaker 04:
Let's say you get a name.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
What do you do with it?

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
We take it to the IRS, and we ask them to pull the records for that year and to see where we are with that person.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
But there is never a name forthcoming.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
And even if we do get the onstanding, in fact, the Court of Federal Claims bypassed the issue and they moved on to saying that they've resolved the issue presented, the merits issue presented back in 2005 when there clearly were poor people out there who were standing.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
They clearly had jurisdiction.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
And there was just no reason to reopen or revisit it at this time, especially since this court in Russian Recovery Fund has dispositively ruled on the very issue presented.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
And indeed, if you look at the way the statute's structured, as the Court of Federal Claims said back in 2005, if you accept what this Court said in the first interlocutory appeal, that the statute of limitations is 6501 and 6229A is merely a minimum period that can extend but never cut it back, the period specified in 6229A, the period specified in subsection A,

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
It compels the conclusion, as the court of federal claims said, that this period

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
is the period for assessing the tax.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
That's 6501 as possibly extended by 6229.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
And every court that has looked at it, including this court in a presidential opinion, Russian Recovery Fund, has said that the FPAW extends the period in 6501 as possibly already been extended by 6229A.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
There is no reason in this case, as the Court of Federal Claims properly said, to reopen or reconsider its ruling from 2005.

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
Is Article 3 standing jurisdictional?

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
Yes, it is.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
So how could I reach this other issue?

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
Why are you spending your time on it?

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
We asked your questions about it.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
It's a judgment question.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
What are you doing?

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
What am I doing?

[00:15:30] Speaker 03:
I have to reach the jurisdictional question.

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
We had all of our questions about it.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
And you pivoted from it in like two minutes to go to an issue which, if you win on the jurisdictional question, I can't even reach.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
Right, Your Honor.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
But the court of federal claims here was dismissed.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
It issued an order of dismissal.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
It did not go back and reconsider the merits at all.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
The medical free standing is jurisdictional, right?

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
The statutory standing is not.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:15:55] Speaker 03:
So don't I have to reach the standing question?

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
I would say that in the context of this case, no, because the actual judgment was the case is dismissed.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
There are three reasons why the case could be dismissed.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
But if we reach the merits, there's an assumption that we find you have standing.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
That's the only basis upon which we would reach the merits.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
I agree, Your Honor.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
The point I'm trying to make is that the Court of Federal Claims did not reach the merits in the judgment that is currently under review.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
It said we did it.

[00:16:29] Speaker 01:
We decided that a long time ago.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
We're not going to reopen it.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
We're not going to reconsider it.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
The case is dismissed because the only

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
only issue that the plaintiffs are still arguing.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
Do you understand our trepidation as to why you seem to be running away or discarding the standing issue?

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
If you want us to reach the merits, we're going to have to satisfy ourselves that Article 3's standing

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir, I'm not asking the court to reach the merits per se.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
I'm asking the court to affirm an order of dismissal.

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
And I only pivoted to the merits to say that they were resolved a long time ago.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
And currently, there's no reason for this case to continue.

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
So the dismissal is correct.

[00:17:22] Speaker 01:
But if you want to go back to standing, even let's assume, arguing though, that the government should have come forward and should have put in all the settlements with these partners

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
It still comes down to there has to be a person that it's an Article 3 issue.

[00:17:39] Speaker 01:
The Constitution overrides any statutory scheme.

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
There has to be somebody here who suffered an injury.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
There has to be somebody here, a tax paying partner whose taxes are still not resolved from this 1999 tax year, who's waiting for this to be resolved to see if they owe any more money.

[00:17:58] Speaker 01:
The party who knows who they're talking to is North Hills.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
The party who's making the representation, there are still people out here who haven't settled as North Hills.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
All we needed was a name.

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
That was never given to us, and because it's their burden, I think, to hand over the name under Article 3, that's where that burden comes from, they didn't carry their burden, and there is no standing to reach any of the merits.

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
And that's another good reason why this dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims was correct and should be affirmed.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
Where does the IRS not know who has filed and not?

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
If they've been filing all these years, wouldn't they know if somebody there's no filing?

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
It seems to me that some of this information we're asking of counsel, it may be in your wheelhouse.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
The IRS does representations to our counsel.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
They have not been placed in the record as to groups of people who have settled.

[00:19:01] Speaker 01:
And we believe, based on what IRS has told us, that everybody has settled.

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
But if somebody hasn't, we would have checked it out.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
And if there are no further questions, we'll rest on our brief.

[00:19:18] Speaker 01:
And I thank the court for its time.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
Mr. Mather.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
Back to the standing issue.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in Article 3 that places the burden of proving standing on the plaintiff.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
As I tried to explain in my earlier remarks,

[00:19:51] Speaker 00:
There is the process here that is designed to establish standing.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
There is every partner by statute as a party to the proceeding under Section 6226.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
And there is the mechanism which requires the IRS at the time of the settlement to notify the representative partner of who has settled.

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
That didn't happen.

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
TransUniverses Ramirez, the Supreme Court case in 2021,

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
Doesn't that say that the plaintiff, in this case you, has the burden of establishing standing via evidence?

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
Well, I have two responses to that.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
First, there was no evidence in the claims court case.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
We didn't have an evidentiary hearing or any evidence submitted.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
And probably for that reason, the claims court didn't decide the standing issue.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
Second, I think that case is distinguishable because of the nature of the settlements in our case being that there are multiple ways to resolve one of these cases and the least

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
The least efficient way is the way that the government chose to go about it in this case by settling individually with each partner along the way.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
Well, as the representative, as I repeat, we can't know who they've settled with unless they tell us.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
Unless they tell us.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
You can ask the partners.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
Right, but the partners could choose not to tell us.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
How are you representing their interests?

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
Well, because we have been appointed as the representative until all partners are done.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
So there's one party that knows the answer to this, and that's the IRS.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
What makes no sense to me is not one person that knows of the IRS.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
If there's a partner out there who hasn't settled, he or she knows that.

[00:21:48] Speaker 02:
And he or she is allegedly the injured party who would give you standing in this case.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
No?

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
Following up on Chief's question, which you haven't answered yet, is like, sure, there are ways that you could survey the partners and see if any one of them hasn't settled and wants to pursue it.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
And I have been told that there is such a partner.

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
I haven't interviewed them personally to verify that statement, but I have been told there is such a partner.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
But why not?

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
Well, standing wasn't even an issue that was

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
It's always an issue, I grant you, but it wasn't an issue upon which we lost in the claims court.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
The claims court didn't decide it because I think the factual record didn't exist upon which they could decide it.

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
So it's really a question of whose responsibility it is for not presenting that factual record, and it's our contention that it's the government's responsibility.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
And it's not the Constitution that places that burden.

[00:22:54] Speaker 00:
The other issues, I guess, the government has argued that the prior case somehow decided the issue in our case.

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
And I believe Judge Prosper, you were on that panel.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
And there was a single issue certified for appeal in that case, and it wasn't our issue.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
the court decided that issue, didn't decide our issue.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
It's as simple as that.

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
I think there's no dispute that our issue was not part of the summary judgment motion, was not a cross-motion for summary judgment from the government, was not certified for appeal, was not argued on appeal, was not

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
was not addressed by this court in the appeal.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
And so for all those reasons, there's no way that that prior ruling could somehow be law of the case or a mandate rule or whatever the government wants to call it that precludes us from arguing the case here.

[00:23:59] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you a question.

[00:24:00] Speaker 04:
You don't have to answer with any names.

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
I'm not asking for names.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
But do you know who your clients are?

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
I certainly know who's paying my fees.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
You do?

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
Have they settled with the IRS?

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
They are the two people that have had their items dropped out of the proceeding and were resolved in the tax court case.

[00:24:22] Speaker 04:
So they're out?

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
They're out.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
What about the other ones?

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
Both of those.

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
Both of the clients that are paying me are out, but they were in charge of a partnership.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
that had many partners that participated in this 80 Global Partnership.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
And they, as the representatives of their partnership, are telling me that not all the people in that partnership have settled.

[00:24:52] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
I thank both counsel.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
This case is taken under submission.

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
Thank you.