and incomplete interpretation of the sec to close that issue in this case for fifty two to twenty nine dish three the federal state and local taxes cools the board essentially interpreted that was to mean that all taxes collecting is not could be not maybe it is contractors are not required to be clear for it there's really no disputing this case that it no time prior to two thousand and one had the state of tennessee property covered by thieves contrary to the transactions are properly covered by this contract now the goodman on page twenty two of their brief recognized just a problem so they want to add two words in there type  it would not be imposed until two thousand and one there was no new statute no new regulation no new proposed policy letter that should have put a few pennies on notice that a tax was in the  take it from what you were just saying that your position would have been well now we look at it but it's never been opposed before no no likelihood it will be imposed again and therefore you would still be arguing mutual mistake which is not yet sure i would because the word is it is not maybe could be one then why does the green paper distinction help you oh that case there was no in hunt if you were cool be the issue was to clearly clickable tax what maybe the second i did the buddha looked at was whether it was an existing fact we never said that this would never be applied in the future we're not clairvoyant what we did say before the boy  we didn't know how much it cost to perform this contract nor is there any indication that we had any trouble performing in ninety seven ninety eight ninety nine two thousand it was only in two thousand and one when i did the boom we got that letter from the state of tennessee that we realize they would you know there was a problem here and again the independent government estimate which is very detail and is a joint appendix eighty one eighty five is also very clear they didn't have any reason so neither party you know believe that the cause was area and but i'd like you to help me with understanding its application in a particular subset of cases that would include this case and that is contracts by a service provider to a customer who wants to take advantage of that of the offered service i mean i go to a dry cleaner just to make it really simple and i contract with the dry cleaner to queen my s for x amount of money not the dry cleaner could not possibly come back and say you know what the state just visited just the other day and even though they had never previously applied sales taxes to dry cleaners they're doing it now i'm going to have to increase your the cost of clean your suit by dollar i mean i'm i don't really care about taxes or anything else i just want to know how much it's going to cost me to get my soup cleaned would  had i would worry about opening the floodgates if you know if you give my client has his day in court thank you i think is true that in one thousand nine hundred seventy tennessee was not issuing an assessment to r p i to pay this tax but of course the important point is that our current i'm sorry the department of revenue tennessee was in fact imposing this tax on other laundry facilities in the state of tennessee that is this was a the the activities of the laundry facility with the type of property and services that came within the scope of the sales and you still he objects to your addition of the words type your language or i understand it i think it's the only reasonable basis the only reasonable way to read the clause what r p i is doing is really making an overly technical reading of the fark laws as we know it in our brief r contract and thus the tax would not be a political under that scenario that simply cannot be right i mean that simply is that it would lead to essentially absurd results that the tax could never apply in a situation which  is doing with respect to similarly situated businesses that is is tennessee imposing a citizen used tax or business tax with franchise tax and other laundry facilities in the state of tennessee suppose that they had never  enforcement policy matter to correct their oversight and go after laundries are you suggesting that that would all that change in policy would fall within the scope of the clause that says we've given them a basis for  taxes even through changes have been forced by policy are not recoverable so you would say after imposed not just after legislative but after enforcement decisions that are made yes the post federal clause for instance refers not only to legislative package but also administrative action how about if they decided to impose this laundry is a fairly small laundry and they'd previously only gone after large laundry maybe said now we really need the money let's go after laundries that are below the certain cut off size that we previously that also would be after imposed right we believes and you think that the decision to go after laundries on federal basis isn't a similar kind of decision a much stronger stance or leverage it you're saying it's after imposed if the state decides for the first time to go after launchers also after impose if they decide to go after small laundries why isn't the same ration now then doesn't that hold if they decide for the first time to go after laundries that are located on federal bases what terry bases or other federal reservations i guess the best way i can answer that is that there is no doubt into the tennessee code that contractors operating on federal property are subject to the same tax cuts but i'm talking about a question of enforcement and you had said that enforcement decisions need with respect to laundries are small laundries are some other category laundries would touch on to today after imposed tax and that time having a hard time distinguishing between small laundries and the laundries on military bases which previously they hadn't gone after but now they're going to go out because they say you know what we can get those guys but i guess even assuming that it was an after post tax that it was a change in force and policy with respect to the laundry facilities located on a military bases for instance that would still be an after opposed state tax that would not fall within it that would not come within the after imposed federal tax exemption of this it would still be the tax that the contractor must bear but if it were but after imposed as an after legislated state taxes are not imposed on the contr right actually your honor in this particular contract under this for clause after impose state taxes are not will cover that there are no there is another four clause i believe it's fifty two to twenty nine for which does allow for after impose state taxes but that involves not competitive oh contracts so in this particular case yes maybe state administrative or enforcement policy change the risk of that change falls on the contractor n legislation or legislation i mean it really any change in the tax law any risk of change in texas law would be borne by r p i under the terms of this contract i misunderstood your earlier argument or you is in fact no evidence supporting the government made any statement of material fact regarding the application of these taxes and that go tales in with the idea that the government did not form any belief or the mutual mistake dr it had no belief regarding the application of these taxes there's nothing in the record establishing that the government held the belief one way or the other regarding the application of these taxes you know when one of them i do think that the mutual mistake clause is difficult to sort out great nation but one of the principles that underlies a lot of cases of course i can see is a sense of whether one side is really getting on fair office and is there any indication in the record that the addition of the taxes which otherwise would have been added to the bid would have produced it included the political state taxes those taxes would have amounted to i believe less than six hundred thousand dollars or approximately six hundred thousand dollars so there are that being the case it isn't the case in which  the contractor managed to get the contract by ignoring the taxes and now wants to come back into government for taxes that it couldn't have had the contract included in the first i agree that there's nothing in the argue that the we're guards what happened in two thousand and less r p i can establish that it didn't bear the risk of its mistake it doesn't matter what the government believed that might be the all committed issue but there are actually required to pay the tax it simply requires r p i to make to make certain compilations regarding that tax when issuing its price list but does that just a reason in print that the army that is the court noted in liberty lobby the nonmoving who bears the burden a trial is required to come forward with some evidence establishing a genuine issue there must be some evidence that my question if th two thousand and three inclusion of evidence now would raise an issue that we do not believe it is now for these reasons we would respectfully request that this court firm the decision of the board and if there are no further questions the question if the government was not a mistake about the imposition of the tax that the ninety seven contract was already clear enough it would have been no need to add that language standard to the government in two thousand and three i would also like you imposed a reasonable the standard to my clients of ninety seven where they basically say i'd like to put the position argued by government counsel but this was not deserves his day in court today troy excused what is the difference and this is something that's always been sort of a puzzle to me because i've never actually practiced before the armed services board of contract appeals but what what ok let me ask it this way what would you get other than a second shot but what would you get about from sending it back for a a trial before the eight speciate that you didn't get and were somehow for clo able to weigh the evidence in a way that the