with the years to which would have to extend the requirements? >> the regulation has changed. that change does not take effect until december 16th.

the drivers will be given an opportunity to elect the years. the driver will then be allowed to choose between four out of five years or something. this is an 800 hour per year stance. if we were in 2007, we could only use 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. >> it gets less favorable. >> not necessarily less favorable.

hothis is more favorable. i drove more later. >> mr. murray -- >> we're not in the business of trying to deny permits. >> are there any proceedings going on against the medallion holders that are not indicated by audit. >> why would it be a fine and

not replication. >> they are letting us know what the problem might have been. if someone came and and said, i broke a foot and i was out of commission for six years. here is all of my documentation. i did not realize. they would look at that and say, ok. if they cannot prove to us that they can drive. >> is is quite a large number? >> yes, and i believe that we sent out fines.

>> this question had to do with medallion boulders. you used the broken foot example and all of that. there is no broken foot. >> that is correct. we are sorry that you had to go to ethiopia for a family matter. we cannot look back and forth. we're going to deny you a medallion. >> the result can be harsh but

the short answer is yes. the standard is something like four out of five years. there might be a year where things are tough. some sword given this year based -- some are given this year based upon the process. if he did not drive at all last year drove the previous four, he could obtain a medallion. >> thank you.

>> in the color schemes demands inspection within 24 hours. why would you stole -- do not want someone? -- stone wall someone. corruption is not unknown in the taxi industry.

>> why would someone manipulate the medallions. i wanted to research quickly because i have not heard anything in the same curve you and the proposition. this led me inexorably to the conclusion that i have been telling you. i think that i'm the only one that has raised this and this is why. this was not put into effect in 2005. the takeover and then make their own rules. if you do, you would see that

there was never a driving requirement. how does this really work? they have followed their role -- will. you cannot look at the language of the text. however you do it, he has been given a very hard deal by the mta and i urge you to give him

his medallion. thank you. >> your plan to apply for a medallion in 1998. >> you apply to put your name on the list and then depending on the vagaries on the ebb and flow of applications for medallions, you can wait 10-15 years. >> lynde did you apply? >> 1994. >> this is a two-step process. when he was away, we're talking

about two different steps. >> i have a question, we heard from one of the speakers that your client least in a yellow cab. when was that? >> i don't know anything about that. >> i cannot hear you. but >> you will have to get closer to the microphone. >> did you ever keep your bills or ask yellow cab?

>> no. i always kept -- >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> when putting together your tax returns, the latest date was in 2009 so you retroactively filled out those tax returns, correct?

the returns that are in the exhibit of your briefing, you dated them. you filled the amount in 2009 for the years 2005 and 2006. >> can you take a look in your exhibit? >> they were assigned in 2009. >> which one is 5 and which won a six?

-- which one is six.

>> the trouble i was having is the same that -- wanted 2006 compared to 2009, this was separate. in april, 2007, they were out of the country. this was late filing. >> -- >> i was not present at the

hearing and there is some question and copies flying around. how you would extrapolate hours from dollars. >> rate, i understand that.

>> i was not here in the first day of that hearing. i was relieved and then he brought me back mid hearing. >> right. >> that is ok. >> this is part of your brief. >> i'm just noting that the declaration is on april 2nd.

this appears to have been prepared in january of 2009. >> a few months before the declaration, january 10th, 2009. >> why were they after the fact? i was going to ask that of your clients. >> why were these tax returns prepared in 2009? >> this wasn't 2006. >> the 2005 was repaired and

2006? >> -- was prepared in 2006? >> i have the same inclination and one does not typically increase the amount of taxes that they will owe. you don't usually grow your income in order to pay more taxes. what documents did you provide to your tax preparer for your returns? >> the time i drive. >> they need the documents.

>> i have the moments that i gave them. >> you have used these as an official tax preparer? if we give you time to submit the documents, my question is would that help support the claim here that you have driven this in that capacity? i want to know how you supported -- >> how many days you drive. this is the question than half. >> did you provide any documentation? >> know. >> you just orally told them? >> yes.

>> thank you. >> the go to the same tax prepare every year? >> this bears the stamp. >> who received this with

remittance. it sounds like you filed this with a check to pay your taxes.

>> i now that he did a good job and i guess i am recently qualified, a good job of casting doubt on some of the reasons given by the appellant in this case as to his reasons why -- this is a deeply flawed system. the fact that after all these years and once it was decided, the bills would have to be used in order to prove.

if i was a driver, i would have carbon copies. maybe i am unrealistic. maybe i would not. the idea that we're going to refuse the medallions some times for those years does not

seem reasonable. my solution -- i don't feel comfortable to weigh in on this. there is no way that i feel qualified to do that we should put him under some system where he has to qualify for the four out of five years and hope that his counsel is correct and he would in fact qualify.

>> if we were to follow this, what we have to continue after december 16th? >> mike went to check about an exact difference. the transportation code requires four out of five years and the changes december 16th. >> for out of five years, it will remain the same. the only change is that there

will not be any proration. the applicant shows. we will choose the individual products. >> the appellant would prefer under the old rule because he would want to use aid, nine, 10

on the proration. is that correct? >> right, that would come up in february of 2011. this is discretionary to the hearing officer. >> if he did three or 400 hours in the first and -- >> that would be up to the officer to decide. >> does that answer your question? >> i was wondering if we make a ruling today are wait until the 16th. ho>> if he was to choose 6, 7, , 9, 10, it will not work.

he or department says he has nine. >> -- >> that will not work for him? >> correct.

[inaudible] that is rather difficult for me to