Where the court clerk has entered the final appealable judgment, and the district court judge has initialed it as such, and then the litigant appeals from that final judgment and a subsequent order appointing a receiver, can the appellate court bar that appeal, stating that the district court clerk erred in entering that judgment, and that the litigant failed to timely appeal from a later modification of the receivership that the Seventh Circuit deemed to be the final judgment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : The Circuits are Conflicted : ~ : The First and Second Circuits are in conflict with the Seventh Circuit as to whether the order appointing a receiver is the final appealable order, or whether some later order respecting that ; receivership is the appealable order. The relatively ; . few precedential Federal Circuit decisions respecting : ; orders appointing a receiver draw no uniform standard of what constitutes a final appealable . order; hence, litigants and courts are unsure of when an appeal can be taken. This lack of uniformity has resulted in conflicting, hyper-technical, and unclear court analysis, compelling litigants to appeal early and often. Such uncertainty foments serial appeals, . frustrates a clear and regular flow of procedure, even resulting in wrongful loss of property. Given this ; state of procedural uncertainty, the : FIRST QUESTION is : Where the court clerk has entered the final : appealable judgment, and the district court judge has _initialed it as such, and then the litigant appeals from that final judgment and a subsequent order appointing a receiver, can the appellate court bar : that appeal, stating that the district court clerk erred : in entering that judgment, and that the litigant : ‘failed to timely appeal from a later modification of the receivership that the Seventh Circuit deemed to be the final judgment? ° i | RECEIVED MAR 13 2020 SOREN CORLER { i : | . . A Miscarriage of Justice . Where the IRS has timely notice of a protected claim respecting net-operating-loss carrybacks and carryforwards, the government cannot lawfully disallow them. The IRS approved the Petitioners’ carryforward and carryback net operating losses, but ; the Department of Justice reversed them. But once the IRS has notice of carryforward and carryback net operating losses, these losses become the taxpayer’s protected claim, and as such the government cannot refuse them. Moreover, it is improper that the government conceded, post judgment on appeal, an abatement from an audit reconsideration that the IRS approved nearly six years prior to this action, but then denied the Zabkas’ protected claim to carryback net operating losses against the corrected figure. The SECOND QUESTION is | : Where the government has timely notice of a : protected claim, respecting net-operating-loss ; carrybacks and carryforwards, does the government’s denial of that claim violate constitutional due ; process, where that denial results in a clear ; miscarriage of justice? : Concerning the Third Question The IRS, the Seventh Circuit, and this Court all agree that the government cannot sell a limited partnership’s property to satisfy the individual tax liability of a partner; thereby distinguishing ; partnership property from the partners’ property. ii 3 United States v. Craft, 585 U.S. 274, 286 (2002). . However, the Seventh Circuit found that that difference “evaporates in this case” because the general partner, Dunamis, LLC, is a profits-only partner. U.S. v. Antiques Ltd., No. 13-2918, at 7 (7th Cir. July 28, 2014). Congress codified 26 U.S.C. : : 6323(f) to protect the normal functioning of commerce, The Seventh Circuit agreed with the Petitioners that in order for the government to enforce its liens against the real property and the general partnership interests at issue, the government needed to show that it had perfected its liens under Illinois law prior to the transfers it seeks to challenge, or show that the transfers were fraudulent; but the government made no such : showing. The THIRD QUESTION is ; ; Can the government sell a limited partnership’s real property in order to satisfy an individual partner’s tax liability, where the general partner of the limited partnership is a profits-only partner?