nominally were resolved in Living Care Alternatives of Utica, thus satisfying Montana’s first requirement. Even though the tax years in these appeals differ from those at issue in Living Care Utica. I/II, the tax circumstances which faced Living Care Utica, and the points and defenses raised by Rosser on behalf of it in anticipation of the hearing and pursuant to the statutory provision to raise “any other relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax,” 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(A), are all matters that are “in substance” the same as those raised in Living Care Utica I/II. As to the first, third, and fourth claims, courts in the prior Living Care I/II litigation determined that Living Care Utica’s claims failed as a matter of law. See Living Care Alternatives of Utica, 411 F.3d at 626, 628 (<HOLDING>); Living Care Alternatives of Utica, Inc. v.
holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability and that there is no requirement that the united states consider whether it will receive any revenue from the levy holding that medicaid and medicare funds are subject to levy and that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability holding that the appeals officer was not required to consider the impact of a levy on the taxpayers customers holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record