basic issue i would like to read code and the section seventy six fifty one of which we cited indicates that a tax imposed in a territory would be treated as if it were imposed in a state so  one top to eighty twenty two it says director acknowledges that it actually passed on tax laws that will be precluded from taxing the interest paid by federal bonds and it goes on until then there is no different set of circumstances i'm sure it was the interpretation placed by accord on a statute which had long been interpreted differently which was the triggers act which ultimately resulted in the default and  taxation by the state or political subdivision of the state and then they go on in section three fifty seven point two to find state to define state as including any territorial possession of the united states not that administrative agency the treasury department and is subject to chevron deference by this court nor are i'll just speak briefly to the other matters of the reformation cla seems to me very clear we have election paragraphs twenty two and twenty three of the complaint that if the contract really was one which exempted only a tax imposed by a territory on its own without any  which can't be done then that was a common with mutual mistake and the accord it will just ignore that argument and said there is no mutual mistake alleged but all you have to do is we had twenty two or twenty three get there and as far decision eventually then if we have to the court i respectfully request that the court affirm trial court's decision because the united states congress is in position of the quanta authorial income tax did not breach any contract let me take one moment to put into historical and legal context the text that separation the tax exemption question that's at issue has its roots in the federal issue of federal supremacy and you can see that in the case of the colo versus maryland holding that maryland could not tax federal assets congress by statute as defined the taxation that may apply to united states government obligations sets thirty one u s c thirty one twenty four in which the congress provided that these obligations are exempt from taxation by states and political subdivisions and in paragraph b of thirty one twenty four provided that the internal revenue  congress at forty eight u s c fourteen twenty one i specified that the federal income tax laws which include the internal revenue code shall be doing to apply in guam just as they do here two six eight in its small print but it didn't say the bond is exempt from all taxation outwork here after imposed on the obligation or interest here but the question really is just a matter would be decided on a motion to dismiss and it will be one that will be well it would not really a trial an opportunity to at least have some of these given what we know and it's not going to change no matter what sort of feeding or discovery takes place we know that these bonds state that they are exempt from taxes imposed by a possession we know that the congress and posted and in fact was a law prior to banks entering into these are it's a question i asked in the beginning of the whole page turner and whether or not the definition of imposed is in the position by the government or whether it was an key to the entire issue today extent that it is your honor and let's assume that it is it's clear what the meaning of that phrase is given its historical context it grows out of the federal supremacy issue and to the internal revenue and then in forty eight well actually in forty eight u s c fourteen twenty one i congress made internal revenue code flexible in form yeah the question of whether there's some understanding or the treasury somehow entered into a contract to that legally is impossible given that if the wording to the treasury to do anything with respect to u s government obligation taxation only comes from the co america case but those cases recognize the legislative fact that it was the congress that enacted this tax and because it is like a state tax or federal level charts it is not the kind of that the exemption for states or as it's been extended for regulations sessions applies to the to the taxation of treasury if that they were if it were otherwise the case you would not have a uniform system of federal  cases because in all those cases what you have is a you had first of all you had a contract and you seem to think i'm here but secondly you then had a subsequent intervening congressional action that didn't happen here the facts compl seven point two read together no our council referred again to paragraph seven as if to try to quote extensively on a motion to dismiss you've got to look at the entire complaint and paragraph six says it was in technical terms of the contract that the income from the us she owes would be no this is the important free of any taxation any position of the united states including the territory