failed as a matter of law under the apple cool us tax a dealer's speculative transactions which are made for his who needs intentions on his own time and which are not proven by the minute and wishes of customers will not  course of business and so that's the that's the ordinary acid getting out of the general statement of what the definition as is practical by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers initially and in your remarks that there were years of profitability yes i think it was through eighty eight eighty four through eighty eight and then in eighty nine or ninety there was still a law and they were hoping to offset the loss against the if one the actual truth because as we've just been talking about here already there is no proof that anyone would have engaged in any of these actual trees within which the river or even a mile from an expert as to this was going on more good than this could be supported we just have been saying i know of customers i could have gotten customers here and also i would have become a dealer but that's not enough and key point on that is that the government does not  there's not a word on the number as to what that amount might be and because of that damage here are utterly completely scripted to you and i come back i always pictured myself with with great deference and also reality if i conflict complex case i would say that they indicate initially here to you that the fundamental nature of the business would have to have been changed that was an argument made a trial we completely disagree on that aspect of this case and in terms of that argument and we went on and i think it will all be able to show you here however was that he was so terribly close to being a dealer in the first place such that there wasn't any need whatsoever to fundamentally change the nature of his business the second thing i want to point out about the argument that you've just herd is its curator ization of the first time we were here in this court  it was suggested that our entire approach was in some way that we would restructure all of our individual traits it was quite clear from the discourse for the first time that that was not the argument that we made nor was the discourse understanding and period of that order the court points out what our evidence was of proving our own case and sided with mr raby who had tested we had provided deposition testimony of what the issue is not not this discussion of restructuring and that they seem to hang on we've never sided with the courts that the issue in the instant case is whether the plaintiff could conduct in his transactions the ones that he had as a dealer if the defendant had given him proper advice and that was our whole approach across all of our or our evidence at trial directed so to show him how caribbean felt was was that close to being a dealer under the under the law and and certain changes in the way he was conducting his day to these would it would have demonstrated that indeed he was  he began doing a great deal of work in government bonds to the point where he became well known nationally his credit lines were in the billions he had over two hundred billion in government securities transactions between one hundred eighty five and eighty nine he did about a third of his transactions in government washington's right there at the beginning where the where the bonds are sold he financed these transactions with with what are called repurchase agreements just like primary dealers he used cover the securities broker terminals just like primary dealers he had dinner time they called it on the federal wire transfer from three to three fifteen every afternoon where you finished up your wor fifteen at the end of each day so this federal wires who finishes the of the work that have been done was only available to deal so we had all of these activities that he was involved he he ld securities according to the testimony of mr just an average for only about three or four days which is significant because that's the indication of dealer activity one who are frequently as opposed to one would hold for purposes of investment for a link the period of time even the stevens case that they cite talks about that that there was a purchase there and they found that to be for investment because there was no it appeared that they were buying an operation of a business that was going to be held for a while as an investment therefore characterizes investment this sure period of time just like why is looked to as a dramatically change some of his beloved will of his activities and that you for the first time they were good in terms of government securities that you're for the first time they recorded him as a as a true rater in government securities and did not recommended him to get further auction deal with and that's where this fee dance because of the nature of the kinds of activities he was involved in the muzzle of the activity all of the different things that he had available at that point we said and the jury agreed that you agree that they had a responsibility they violated that responsibility right then to advise him although status is something we should try and pursue and it wasn't as i say very far away already considering the elements that i had given you very ended up as a result in nineteen hundred eighty seven he had tax on income of forty one million even though he only had an economic gain of tulum the reason for that is that bonds and stocks are suppose even though he had an economic gain of only two million eighty seven and he ended up paying tax on eight on twenty five million from his parents income i should say of twenty five trader will indeed this court pointed out in the first decision that he can take that approach and did indeed say yes i i was designated as a trader i we said he was very very close to dealer  can rely on the the the findings in some of these federal decisions but they were all tainted by the fact that the negligence here he was he was malpractise claims have been high i was a dealer but when they filled out my tax returns they called me a traitor then we can measure the damage did aggressively contest that including the suggestion that cooper is in line on the fall of ninety one the age of eighty nine document had put him down as a tr think finally he simply wanted to just quickly address the reduction that was done by the trial judge the two tax benefit rules that i think are clearly in play should not of allowed at a the point of the federal tax benefit rule is that seventeen point six you first if you reduce by what they ask you to be reduced to true heroes as testimony takes you to ten million that doesn't alleviate  the the fact that he's receiving if you go as to the remainder of ten million roughly that will be subject to tax under the tax small so that when taken down yet further so the tax benefit rule he takes a double deduction coming off and then the other point we made in the reply in which you saw all back and forth about it and you would eventually demanded their opportunity to supply  nine savings his claim for that year would have been roughly twenty one point one million steve g so sixteen point two plus the four point nine that they now are trying to use to nothing to reduce what the jury ultimately awarded our claim for damages did not include that four point nine because he could not be a part of the seventeen point six is the point it was