the issue in this case to one single issue that being whether that obligation to honor a few approaches speak a fixed during the tax years accrediting in question the second thing i'd like to do is cover the actual terms of the contract financial statement treatment that the taxpayer employees in dealing with the issue for generally accepted accounting principles and under those principles to be cool is a sure fire for the point of my commission is the trade stamp which is an alternative argument mere declaration of dividends on policies established a fixed liability even if the declaration was it was revoked and even if it might not even be enforceable under state law we believe that submitting medical information to a claim rider etc since that decision the i r s as an administrative practice has down general dynamics such that i liability can be fixed even if a cla so much general dynamics standing alone would defeat our claim we would say to the contrary that general dynamics as interpreted by the i r s indicates that when our customers come before they go to the polls to buy the next time i can cash to cancel the program the company has no obligation to pay the customers about thirty cents correct actually we would respectfully disagree with the the the obligation we believe arises company the company would have to pay them that eleven million dollars in cash yes because to get your point about terminations of a program we know reserves the right in any way in this contract to terminate coast i'm sorry retroact gift cards and things are bad nature and we catch them out of the program because the program was never intended for that kind of abuse so we've always honored the fuel products regardless of the conduct regardless of how they were under your theory needs the deduction is fixed and the contract unilaterally was entered into the grocery for purchased how do you treat for accounting accrual which has no effect on the income or the expenses of the company because that was it was expense than the prior year was that of it as a balance sheet liability so when they actually come in within the next three months after year end there's no expensing eagle because your you will be purchased gas in the price of gas is has nothing to do with this program at all i understand ok so you come in you buy gas and you get ten dollars off your gas right this gas station books the entire sales if there was no credit the system is set up so we're not trying to recruit for things that we don't think every me get paid built into our system is only a crew for growth we know he's going to get paid it's almost perfectly precise it's much better system then but third circuit and we know from recent statistics that approximately ninety three percent of the fuel birds everybody are going to be redeemed within within ninety days of your ad so we only fill the ninety three percent or we don't even try a broker to adopt  any other circumstance house under third circuit the camera decision and and the transportation workers decision under federal connemara the unilateral contract is triggered when you begin performance back when you and performance under state law so under transportation workers federal carbon off contracts when the customer comes into the store and begins this whole series of transactions we would say that your level contract is formed at the instant he contract no wonder under unilateral contract the offer read him kind of like a performer not the question over and of the liability is triggered is is when they perform the act request it and for us but they alternatively this is a federal income tax case and i believe that the court could also as an option for the federal common law of contracts and and say that as soon as you begin performance but that the contract is enforceable excuse me but but you don't need to look any further than did the program guide which is the contract we so we say this is what you have to do and we always hear and that's life in the consider how the taxpayer is treating it on their books and we are there's a difference if they were voting for future purchasers of bread you had had to order it for those that had already bought the groceries i don't believe that there is worth ten cents but it isn't and this is where the contingency gets complicated because it's worth ten cents per gallon at a particular point in time and you don't know how many of those dollars are going to be purchased that day you don't know how many additional discounts are going to be accumulated o because they get reimbursed by try and cool and basically it is dry and eagle charging against the fifty dollars income it gets even the legal liability that it has sufficient discounts to reduce that price to zero and as a matter of estimation someone probably did their tax payers computer systems did not track that and at trial they were not able to produce evidence of any have some redemption center and buy something with a dollars if you wanted a toaster we have to provide we stand in sufficient quantity to to earn the toast and that is a very different model significantly regulated industry and what they found in that case is that a policy holder had a contractual expectation that they would receive a policy for the dividend regardless of what was publicly declared here there is more contractual expectation that  tax principles we weren't titled under these regulations to to look at this definition of a rebate a refund including providing a reduction in the price of goods in the future under this regulation sexual one point six one dash for this regulation says this is what we're talking about and then the recurring item exception says you know when we are talking about these rebates refunds are discounts on future purchases that's presented to lead nationally against the income from they were generated so under regulatory lawless the iris is bound to follow we were allowed to do this even if all of these other things are not met i mean so when you get your to the regulation out here this is it it's right this for the supplemental funding benefits these economists instead of tissue institute to estimate the future unemployment benefits years down the road we've got a better system and in fact the i r s has conceded that our system is so precise it's reasonably accurate year after year of the nanny to talk that's all built into the reason the estimate we don't know exactly how many gallons you're going to need the data you put up to the pump but we can tell you with one or two percent