of x dollars and that becomes not taxable no your honor the question has to do with the burden of proof number one it has to do with the whole determination of what is a proof of claim once the proof  account testified that three hundred eighty thousand dollars worth of business income is under reported and the stipulation covers under reporting of non business income and overt overcharging deductions so there was the very end of the process after you determine what the returns should have been and were not so tax and at that point you considered the credits title as a result of the jeopardy specialized rules and this court has recognized the special jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court now it will one fifty five packs court rules with proof which provides for post judgment calculation of fact it political in a bankruptcy court setting but what does that mean as a practical matter as a practical matter your honor the government had a responsibility since they had the burden of proof here they had no presumption of correctness basement of proof of claim they should have tables and calculating not necessarily your honor if it was x simple and let's assume for the sake of argument that is why didn't the government do it they could have done that really isn't a good enough reason to accept the tax should be on the tax stated per return and the district court made no fun finding with respect to the understatement of any taxable income despite the jo stipulation right as to pride and everything that went into that development by the iraqis was told regis your honor if it was i hear you say that but give me an example and ninety two and ninety t change to it it's still open question before the bankruptcy court if that's what we if we gave a partial remand for some computations it would go back and would be recomputed right yes right ok and that would and that would be however since there were other factual if used such as under a minute we conclude that all the other factual issues were correctly decided as to the stipulated amount the competition would be relatively simple would it not as application of the stone field will in this case i think there is there is a legal issue regarding the burden of proof however positive essentially of the rest of the cases i submit that it is not  and whether that extends to all phases of taxpayers business and not business and i guess that issue does not seem to be been incorrect by the bankruptcy court however because in those areas the dollar amounts are stipulated the burden of proof i will not make a difference on those issues so there is no dispositive even if there is a dispositive legal issue this course should apply the violin factors to see whether or not it makes sense to have jurisdiction in the filing factors weigh against the court find in business and the government to not appeal that issue so there is a slight difference and that is why the burden of proof issue is no it was not dispositive at this  and that type of legal issues not apparent in this case i'll move on to the merits issues in this case the bankruptcy court instead of trying to determine the amount of income there a lot of pretrial work on this both sides have some view of what things were where the agreements and disagreements a lie and you went forward percent of those court and you're not happy with the bankruptcy court awarded zero penalties and zero interest when that are filed his tax returns several years late and extensions and besides that so the bankruptcy court originally by for catered to trial and the second phase of the trial was to be to determine interest and penalties and the bankruptcy courts sort of potential  conceded the burden of proof if the bankruptcy if the terminations is still clearly erroneous on that issue the bankruptcy court determines there was zero unreported business in town and now the government brought forth a number and said followed the internal revenue manual they have used the bank deposits the correct method and they've come forth with a substantially correct approximation and their number was opposers around four hundred thousand dollars the because the government is not required to prove an exact amount he makes much of the fact that it was not a concession of an exact amount of the debtors income and i'm not in the south was proving prove the correct amount of the deficiency it is a substantial effect proclamation and i don't know why why do we need a trial well if there are other methods proposed before the bankruptcy court that it could however and it's not it's not the only number available to the bankruptcy court why does why should we turn it back from bankruptcy or two hundred numbers when you tell us that's a substantially correct amount i think since the trust under five o five the government's priests before this court really aggressive only parvo five and they don't do it for very good reason because under five o two meaning the proof of claims action they cannot prevail and i submit to this court that's just part of the legal issue here what is the responsibility of the government under the circumstances that they found themselves in and in the bankruptcy court submitted to be brought out in a bankruptcy court if this court was to revive this was a long drawn out process over five years before we ever had the actual trial trial lasted four days there's no want of crying it's because the government bureaucracy can't they frankly can't get their act together this is been a long drawn out thing this case should have been startled it should have been