field should we address it at all i don't think you should i just want to indicate that in contrast to that three page analysis the district court in the issue that's before you regarding whether the severance vacation and other payments constituted that is consistently all the way through december of two thousand and five opinion by a panel of this court in the riviera baker case where there was an issue regarding whether title seven settlements after an employee had left employment concluded even title seven settlement after someone left employment was wages trial with fifty eight three zero one is the question i believe that's consistent with our position involuntarily and we believe she was involuntary charlie we believe the record is clear on that and that's the only argument in their opposing brief let me three occurred here because if we don't get this in and we're going to lose something this is a contract has nothing to do with the interpretation by the i r s why are we talking about the i arrested all we don't have to go to the i r s rulings because we're determining what the contract is the contract says if you want to find out how much it is looking box one has nothing to do with was our position below all of the briefing is looking for an interpretation of what is wages we spend a certain it's what a service journey is the contract says service earnings is what we're talking about which they define as quote total wages and salaries for federal income tax purposes for the calendar year i don't disagree and we thought below that the plain language of the plan supported our view because all the service turnings were in boxes one on the w two and my client was employed during the whole time and we thought based on that law it was extremely simple and straightforward what i was pointing out in terms of the distinction of the decision by the district judge but i have great respect for there was on a lot of analysis on an issue that's not in front of you there was no citation of any case at all and there's numerous case law that we think over sixty years the courts in all sorts of contexts and i'm just pointing out whether you're trying  context whether you're talking about title seven cases whether you're talking about someone who we use voluntarily or involuntarily and sues and gets a judgment whether somebody saddles and is not working in all of those contexts the courts have over sixty year period consistently held that money is wages for federal income tax purposes again we're going to have to go there i understand not only don't have to go there i'm having a hard time getting outside of the contract because this happened because there's a kicker individual was employed by the company under employment contract they had it a retirement plan and were not are not worried about tax implications at salary reported for the federal income and assigned by the internal rather mr and that was your language that's how i got into the i'm sorry i did that was to meet the various definitions of wages that were raised by nevada power as to why they claim it wasn't wages for purpose of the plan or initial argument below which we don't believe was ever contradicted by anyone was that the plain language of the plan supports the position that these payments should have been included in the plan because they were under the plan definition of total wages and salaries for the calendar year if the contract is not ambiguous in seeing earnings means a print participants total wages and salary as district court ruled against us without citing any cases or any authority and based on that i think that led to everyone searching for a definition so bottom line is your view was what's in box one console just your all right let's hear from the other term employment contract was not wages a salary as as commonly understood and therefore did not need to be considered in her pension calculation we talk about the atmosphere in which that happened it was the downsizing going on after the the employer under certain circumstances and the employer under certain circumstances but you have to look at the nature of the payment and the nature of this payment was that it was not wages it was it was a payment to buy out of her long term contract it was this be it the administrators and the committee so below  the consistent treatment of participants under the plan have indicated that terminations payment voluntary terminations payment is not included in the calculation that's the whole case both examples were discussed extensively in the briefs in administrative record below and also if you take a look at the letter from the plan drafted mr maher now he has several letters in the record where he says you drafted the plan and that throughout the document itself and the specific terms and conclusion you come to with these practices i think you have to go outside of the plan to bring in the practices to explain your plan because box one says everything everything is in box  one if i could finish briefly with with with i'll come back to question one second the other piece of evidence that i think it's significant with respect to the construction of the plant is the calculation she herself was given at the time of her terminations which showed that definition by reference to show me the language that incorporates participants total well just in salary as reported by the company for federal income tax as reported by the company and by as is reported by the company but as interpreted by the internal revenue service not limited to work actually done but also includes entire employer employee relationship which the compensation speed now if you want to go there ok i was a little concerned about which way folks want to go but sounds like you're arguing that we ought to drag in all these cases council and the reason we cited it was to show the ever expanding not to get into taft law but to show the ever expanding definition because all of the employer employee relationship and how expansive the courts are viewing the definition of wagers in a a severance and severance they say is wages and that's why we've been arguing these because severance they say is wages as it relates to this circuit's definition and if it's one and if severance is wage use then we should prevail in terms of the issue of voluntary and involuntary that was never really briefed on before the district court but the reason it's significant in our view is while the paperwork says voluntary and you know in employment contexts normally someone doesn't want to be fired it's been a high level executive for twenty five years they want to say it's voluntary but the provisions for the double bonus and double salary are only were applicable in the contract if it was involuntary so forgetting what it says but what the intent really was and nevada pal in answer to your question about which plan we all agree that it was the eighty six nevada power plant there's no dispute no one ever claimed the low that was ambiguous there that a power always claimed that we should use the plain definition and the contract definition and we both argued that definition below the issue regarding all these other tax cases cetera came up on appeal partly because there was no law cited the district court concluded without  it's at the end of the breach has always been box one and we went off on those definitions mainly because there was no guidance as to why the court ruled against us on box why thank you counsel  submitted for decision