If you tell your neighbor your favorite color is blue, and tell your spouse your favorite color is green, it really doesn’t matter.   Either could be true at a given moment in time.
While owning a singular pet – If you tell your neighbor you own a cat, and tell your boss you own a dog, one of them is a lie – but likely doesn’t hold a consequence unless your integrity is called out by your employer in a legal action.
The only statement that legally matters is what you state when in front of a court of law.

Your favorite color, when stated to a judge, is considered the absolute truth – so too is ownership of either the cat or dog.   The fact you are under oath, in front of a judge, changes the relative consideration of your statement.
When President Obama Inc. (Pelosi / Reid) told the American people the individual mandate within the ObamaCare law was a penalty, he promised it was not a tax.
In front of the Supreme Court President Obama Inc. claimed the individual mandate was most definitely a “tax”, and not a penalty.   In the eyes of the court the truth was the statement made in front of the judiciary, the individual mandate was evaluated as a tax.
The prior statements to congress and the American people are discarded.   The “Truth” is what’s said in front of the court – in the eyes of the law, the absolute Truth.

Until that moment in court both claims, “penalty” or “tax” could be made by the administration based on the audience.    However, as soon as the statement was made to the court, the mandate was forever a tax.
That is why today and yesterday, in front of a court, the IRS statements on Lois Lerner’s missing emails are so critically important.   The government forced to define “the truth”.
In front of a judge today the IRS claimed their adversary, True The Vote (TTV), could not demand definition – because TTV could not prove anything missing.
In essence the IRS was stating today the claim of a report toward hard-drive failure and/or absence of emails, does not prove that any Lerner emails ever existed.   Ergo, without evidence that something actually existed, they should not have to explain why anything was missing.
Unlike the supreme court, today the federal judge was having NONE OF THAT.

•  In front of congress the IRS had claimed Lois Lerner had a computer hard-drive crash and as a consequence her emails were unrecoverable for a specified period.

•  In front of the court the IRS today claimed no-one could be sure if the hard-drive crash resulted in any emails lost, and their adversary could not prove that anything existed in that regard, so the IRS should not be legally be compelled to prove the existence of a loss that was not empirically evidenced.

• The IRS was claiming the absence of evidence was evidence of absence.

They failed.
The judge gave them 30 days to swear an affidavit “under oath” as to the status of what happened, how it happened, what was done, who did it, what actions were taken, what alternate actions are available, and what remedies might be possible to provide the information that would most certainly have been pertinent discovery.
Because of this ruling the IRS will not be permitted to state one thing to congress, and an alternate thing to the court.   They must swear the “absolute truth” – and stick to it.
This is valuable.
From this point all other points of research and investigation can assemble.
On day #31, or on any date following the affidavit filing to the court, TTV or Judicial Watch can call upon Lois Lerner to appear in court and testify as to what took place.
Yes, she can indeed take the 5th, again.   However, unlike in front of congress, she would be in contempt of court.   She can be jailed, immediately, and compelled by the judge to testify as to the status of the facts around the material evidence in either case.
Simultaneously, if there is any divergence between the stated IRS “absolute truth”, and the testimony of Lerner herself, there can be serious legal consequences well beyond a favorable ruling on behalf of both True The Vote and/or Judicial Watch.
When you put people in a courtroom, things change.   Things get beyond political, and into the realm of actual loss of liberty – consequences.   Folks beneath the IRS leadership (ie. Lerner) begin to twitch.
Depositions can be taken.  Depositions based on results of depositions can be scheduled.
Subpoenas can be assigned; conversations about discussions, any discussions, can begin to be directly questioned.   Questions about events around the times in question, and perhaps, more importantly, questions about preparations for the testimonials.  All relative questions can/will be asked in court.
Brows begin to bead sweat.
Sunlight breaks through….