and i refer to it here and after as one little i the problem is that there are no such limitations expressly stated in the statute and therefore we asked the court of appeals to reverse the lower  of these cases is that the one seventy two restrictions are imposed under section two little there impose no who are under section one little lie and i think the reason for this is  that one seventy two has been in existence for so long that there's an inclination by the courts to try to simplify the alternative minimum tax to try to that a lot of a lot of thing rushes which is and it is at the same time the courts have to follow the rules of statutory construction which means that they have to treat one little light differently from two little lie in all of the cases you in the what amount should go out of mind nine of the form sixty two fifty while and the difference is whether or not capital or other not the one seventy two limitations from post under one with a lie we know that they're opposed under too little your theory is correct that it's seems to me that would sort of minimize or perhaps notify the need for the tax relief act to two thousand and six tax at the tax relief act of two thousand and six told the american public that they'd get their credits back here respective of the treatment of one little light or too little lie and the language by the staff member who says that the three thousand dollar limitation maybe i'm opposed he left it open for the fact that the courts have yet to decide the issue but congress said regardless of how tax in the first place in the case of mr pearson misled on what happened as the value of the stock drops zero quickly that by the time april came around they couldn't afford to pay the tax and so they won't receive the benefit of the new legislation the problem with this reference the courts make is is is the treasury regulation still does not allow one little lie to be treated the same as too little and the rules of statutory construction that we've congress did not place the one seventy two restrictions under one lie and then treasurer regulation itself it states except as otherwise provided by statute that all other apply well in determining the alternative minimum tax will income well first of all the statute contains a very express exception by treating one little lie differently from too  little and then second this fifty six a four specifically says that the rule of i receive fifty six will be in lieu of one seventy two and the interconnecting statutes know the language and make sense out of this whole statute and problem is that it doesn't make sense but we have to follow a sequence of the statute and we can we can we can't just throw it out the window because it it percent haircut after the adjustments and so the two provisions are not consistent and so the tradeoff that congress allowed was congress would give a haircut at the end of the calculation but at the same time they would allow the n o l to be increased by the adjustment amount and that's that's the way that the statute reads well in rebuttal and you would you like to say that sure we will hear from case before you even get to fifty six you have to understand that the regular rules apply and as he pointed out in the regulations one point five five it explicitly says that unless there's an exception it's dictated by statute regulation or other published guidance and all the regular rules apply in computing the alternative minimum tax and as a first circuit held what that means is that one seventy two limitations of one seventy two a try before you even get to fifty six and so th your starting point is that for an individual taxpayer you already have to deal with the limitations on lawsuits that are imposed by one seventy two and by twelve eleven and i am not sure that we even need to talk about the sequence of computations under fifty sixty because the disagreement we have occurred before that and has to do with whether or not the regular rules apply and the truth is there's simply nothing out there to support of shakspere's argument here  those rules do not apply there's nothing explicit there's nothing even implied there's a certain amount of statute history of the statute that a circuit it's quite clear what the intent of congress was and i think the judge when you're correct in pointing out that the tax really act of two thousand and six would not have been necessary if the taxpayer's interpretation of these statutes is correct that relief was intended to help some of the taxpayers who were caught in the in the bit of a bind because of the problems that occurred with i tech stocks tanking so quickly back in the early in early two thousand i really have nothing else to say i believe our priest has a pretty clearly me and my whole argument is that we don't even need to get to that point that what he's saying is that before you get there you don't deal with one seventy two and what the government's saying and what all the courts were right on this case trying to figure out exactly what the problem is i mean i understood your argument is that the general rule isn't one seventy two apply when you walk when you before you go all men if you're going to come to the all party you play by i under one of the law it says to be determined with the adjustments provided in this section and the adjustment in this section a section fifty six k and incentive stock options are an adjustment under this section under fifty six before i'm surfing to six so for fifty sixty three and the reason here's the problem is if you take a look at the flush language the flush language only applies one seventy two seats to little it doesn't apply it to one little lie right but it starts with the regular tax net operating loss under one seventy two c ok and so that's where one seventy two c is taken into consideration and after that under one little lie it's determined what the under too little it's further reduced by items of tax preference determined under fifty seven and then under the flesh language it says that i'm an item of tax preference should be taken into account under close to only to the extent that such item increase the amount of an oil under one seventy two c ok so there is no application of one seventy two c under one  seven and incentive stock option is a tax adjustment under this section which is fifty six so therefore it's government government under one little law so under the sequence of the statute then under one that ally you're required to make an adjustment ok to the net operating loss under too little lie you're required to reduce intersection fifty seven reductions under fifty seven are subject to one seventy two c harrison the adjustments under one little liar not subject to one seventy two c i understand your