please the court when i was a joke radio and address the burden of not proof but because we're dealing with a lot of the burdens under the legal standards and there are three plain intent of congress plain evidence of a congressional intent to the contrary an intent running against him very material and yet it kind of baffles me that and yet the courts seem not to have applied them i actually see next to no evidence that any of the three circuits ever applied them number one they don't recite these burdens in any of the opinions there's no mention of any of them and i guess they don't get there because they think corporations including nonprofit rights why do you get to the well but but we start with a statute here which  provides for corporation that specialize meaning see corporation and we've got a symmetry rule requiring over payments under payments to be treated symmetrically by those  symmetrically if possible and there's no reason why these shouldn't be tree that's metrically and act your honor the if symmetrical treatment is not provided it leads to what the sixth circuit called strange that point on your proposed definition and what would the overpayment rate before and as corporation for example it depends on i've got two suggestions your honor there are three different places opinions where you go to the dictionary and as long as it needs certain standards but not including any for profit requirement because when you go to the dictionary it doesn't include a for profit requirement so that that's what the courts cleared it and then there's some middle ground and it's my position that we land either at sea corp or we are in the middle ground which is for profit and either one of those leads to a will or are our part in answer to your question about s corporations obviously if it's a c corporation definition they are outside that would would well they they would be i want to make sure i don't get the strewn around but you know if it's for profit s corporation is for profit seems like a convoluted way to get there well not not and i i believe they talk about incorporation using that word in the usual understanding of incorporation is that it's drawn in and the other reason why i don't think that the one thousand nine hundred seven regulations seven regs they'll talk about that which which would cause one to fall back on a plain language understanding what corporation means and that would get you to a point where corporation means for profit and nonprofit well that of course is the government's argument ninety four amendment dealing with overpayments where they use the word corporation and i view corporate repeated four times in one thousand nine hundred ninety amendments in the headings i mean that's the fact that every court has got it wrong and i you know i i mean no disrespect for the courts but texas is a complicated thing and i think that the first domino fell and then other courts i'm not going to write i'm just saying that which uses the word corporation and risso it just doesn't apply so i mean you're off on the wrong foot if you start with or so what i would i would submit you're talking about the different different acts different amendments right yeah the symmetry provisions ought to push us toward a symmetrical reading of the terms corporate in a corporation mormons is a case of the courts just in other words no need to repeat the definition we have a definition of corporate c corporation now and here we have a different word adjective an old were of forms of the very provision defining corporations seventy seven or one eighty three define incorporation and then there is a reg which says you know what are the characteristics of corporation and there is  good afternoon manfred court pepper snyder for the united states of america because wichita center is a corporation if properly received interest on its over payments at the rate that the code rates that the code for corporations the district court's judgment in this case is therefore correct and i would also note as the planetary matter that it's undisputed that nothing distinguishes this case factually from the other cases that the courts have decided on this exact same issue including this case is decided by the second six and seven circuit and as we've signed in our brief and as the courts have held the code contains a definition of the term corporation into action seventy seven zero one and that definition is controlling it includes corporations that are corporations under state law and that something that this court held explicitly in one nine hundred sixty nine in the case of united states vs and the that a corporate term a corporation under the code includes state law corporations like the wichita center in this case and that's also clear from the structure of the internal revenue code which imposes a tax on every corporation and then it has a carve out earn exemption for corporations that are charitable and therefore exempt from income tax under section five hundred one c three that exemption would not be necessary if a five one two three corporation were not a corporation in the first place  and of course we disagree with which talk center that section sixty six twenty one a one has its own definition of the term corporations their argument of course relies on a that cross reference refers to the term taxable period and when you read the statute that way it all makes sense of the section subsection c three does not in fact define the term corporation which is a fundamental problem on which the tax payers arguments are all based there is no definition of corporation in that process reference that they can pick out and import into subsection a there is a definition of canons that were invoked by your opponent at the beginning losing i think the no doubt canon the white will do you think those you think those really are valid and if so do you overcome them by virtue of the principle that overcomes the plain language of the statute and in fact the reason that that exists is that in this area as in a lot of areas intact congress does not necessarily legislate for policy reasons legislates for revenue reasons and that's apparent when you look at the legislative history for the nine hundred ninety four amendment which put in that point five percentage point provision is that basically they principle that would overcome the plain language of the statute i think another one of their canons with their contention that the statute should be liberally construed in their favor but there's no ambiguity in the statute t one way or the other statutes clear it says the rates that apply to a corporation are these particular rates which are talks in terms of corporations over corporate reply and as a general matter in any event the supreme court rejected the general proposition that tax that should should always be considered in favor of the taxpayer and that was in the case of united states versus white which we've cited in our priests so i think those are the cannons i believe that you may have been referring to when you were asking me yeah and i'm just responding to what he said you're well on it but i mean i guess the bottom line if i understand it from your response is simply that canon or not congress had said something else in this particular statute you know if there were any exceptions then you know that we have a different result or and i mean there's nothing manifestly incompatible intent of code in applying plain language of the statute these are you know as i mentioned congress legislating this area for revenue reasons more than anything else  i know that wichita tensors relying on regulation we believe that the regulations are not relevant here because as the other courts have all held in this area  the the answer of this case is dictated by the plain language of the statute there is about the incorporation argument well the legislative reenactment doctrine has nothing to do with this case generally that doctrine comes into play if there is an ambiguity in the statute and you might want to interpret that ambiguity by reference to a long standing judicial or administrative interpretation there is no ambiguity in the statute that would need to be interpreted in that manner in fact the internal revenue code definition of corporation has been in section seventy seven no one well or it's been in the code as it now exists in section seventy seven zero one since one thousand nine hundred eighteen that definition has not changed and under that definition a corporation under state law is a corporation for federal income tax purposes and in any event there actually is nothing even if the reenactment doctrine could apply here there is nothing that c relaxed because there is no regulation under which wichita center as a state law corporation would have been a non corporation so you know at the bottom of check the box regulations what those regulations have done is they have attempted to deal with the situation of entities that are not incorporated in another state law and have attempted to say how those things should be taxed like if it's an association not incorporated should be a corporation should be a partnership should be treated in in one of those ways or another so given the fact that the appellant's here is incorporate cancer regulations the don't apply to this case actually have a provision called effect of local law and it says the term corporation is not limited to state law was a reply brief and that language is on page seven in fifteen of the supplemental appendix but i don't think we get anywhere near the can or regulations in this case because the question is answered by the statute and as the second six and seven circuits have all held under the plain language of the statute the taxpayer which is a corporation gets the overpayment rates that apply to corporations so you don't even gets t regulations but even if you did you certainly wouldn't get the ones that were superceded before the tax periods that are at issue isn't that your point if i understood you correctly was even the check the box regulations w designed to deal with a different situation than a corporation that is a corporation is a puncture of state law and the worst check the box regulations were designed to deal with entities that were not incorporated under state law and therefore how to treat them so both sets of corporations are essentially and i mean both us regulations are essentially in africa that's right and the check the box regulations tune into effect because what had happened since the camera regulations were put in different bases on which the taxpayer would be a corporation under those regulations if they applied either because it was one automatically or because it was deemed to have elected to be so so  you know that's how that would come out under those regulations but i don't think the court needs to reach that point because i think the statute stablish is over payment interest rates corporations and a state law corporation has been a corporation under the code and even under the plain language of the term in detroit medical center the court did a they went back centuries and did  how for century the term corporation even under the plain meaning of the term has been understood to include state law corporations whether for profit or nonprofit so there's nothing that the court look at here that would lead to a result that's different from the result that's determined by the plain language of section sixty six twenty one the support of any further question i want to start off by just indicating that we aren't dealing with what they are which to was a corporation that that is not the issue here it's which type of corporation the code has several types of corporations it draws distinctions across the code between the treatment of the court in the treatment of this court there are there are state owned corporations for example and that's been a distinction that strong lots of sanctions are gone the word corporations is not in evidently and compass all of them a great example is notice two thousand and eighteen dash eighteen which i brought to the court's attention when or if it was issued in order to regulations have a whole section in a court and in my brief from professor bit her i would invite the court to read professor bit hear what he had to say back in one thousand sixty one so it's just not true that