life i wonder if all of the lawyers who are going to argue one only would step up for just a moment and identify yourselves for the record then i have a question or two about how you want to arrange your i get a good morning your honor i'll tell you what my preference is but i'll give you an ok first question i have his have you decided how you want to split your time mean if if you want to stress issues that are not common to the two cases you could of course do that that i could find any to speak up to due wearies just working very good so we basically were addressing both cases at the same time and you can handle you know your in terms of how you want to they deal with the facts and why don't deal with the facts and the other really fuck you ok and you can save up from your fifteen any portion you wish for a response cases and that is that the fact that the sales of the subject properties which were reviewed reviewed by the pieta the fact that those sales occurred in a chapter eleven bankruptcy and were approved by a bankruptcy judge offered absolutely no legal or factual basis acceptable sales is an indication that it had to first deal whether or not it would give way to the sales or just the yard more raising it then act deciding that because they were in bankruptcy it was not going to consider them it bending went on to pursue other methods of valuation so we think well in raising the p tab order they specifically mention that we had not run up to their long long explication of the evidence that was presented to them they point out that you brought up comparable  sales as a basis for your and i didn't see anything specific in there about them saying that you are that because it was a recent sale then it was conclusive feet and pete once we establish the most recent sale it's conclusive we don't need to offer any comparable sam here is the purchase price the firm market value based on the sale eight hundred thousand one hundred fifty depending on which case one argue arm's length by introducing comparables which could arguably at least call for a different bag no your honor because in fact those stronger do so they were introduced because the credibility of the sale applying its own rules applying only law on its own what's your best case for arguing that there should  that a recent bankruptcy sale or bankruptcy auction sale of a property is inherently not it arm's length or said another way that the price resulting from those types of sales automatically  question by evaluating the evidence put before it by the parties in each of the cases and they determined that factual determination which is a review by this court under a manifest weight of the evidence standard just english these four about a year three hundred sixty five to sixty six days and then the witness for the appraisal witness and write i believe for the board of education so that it was here strictly to three to four months advertised as an forth by the opposing party to the tax payer to refute the taxpayers evidence of an arm's length transaction going to show he tagged makes this decision on the evidence presented before it in one of the cases he tab rejected the party's argument came in and without and without being asked to they started introducing their case in chief with comparables right sir after you know there was testimony on how how the sale occurred and you're right your honor comparables and in addition and this is the paragraph i'm referring to which is i think also in the other rulings they made and the other case he kept records a little way to the sale of the subject in december because of the in accuracies testified to by what the taxpayer in the looking for the magic language now i can't find it but there's some magic language in there  about how they concluded that they were going to be dismissive of the out of the  know they are also the key to have also laid out facts you know for the first so many pages of the decision but yes the evidence is in the record if there is an issue with regards you or i have how the peach ha wrote its decision i mean i think these were very thorough comprehensive decisions but our position is this and we want to make it clear that no there is not a preconceived position or per se rule there's not a per a role ok establishing because this type of sale occurs nor as demonstrated by these prior decisions has he tab operated in that way i'd like to for a minute address i before you do that i me and i'll be clear on this position they decided the two cases before them there's no administrative regulation or rule that he tapped hasn't acted with regard to bankruptcy sales there's nothing in the property tax code  you know maybe had other states where fair market value fair or fair cash value is determined by this and by the way we're going to exclude you from considering bankruptcy sales there's nothing like that at all in a way and that's why it's case by case what was a reasonable doubt there pointing out that the economic climate led to large financial losses and bankruptcies among steel different companies in general furthermore between two thousand and one and two thousand work by the seven integrated steel companies in the united states filed for bankruptcy protection quite simply bankruptcy was the industry norm not the exception what was unreasonable or factually incorrect or really any anything wrong with that it state i think we just hit on it impacted by the fact that there were back taxes and yet there were two starkly different issues and they didn't seem they didn't seem to me from reading the two people have really that they made it that they made the distinction between the two cases you know whether they did felt but the documentary evidence eventual it cleared it up and that documentary evidence of this before peter was said then i think it was so it would have made any difference if the expert witness misspoke i don't paid which might have reduced the price of the property in the first place to take those into consideration i don't believe they're saying that you know what they're saying is that there's a confusion between they don't think there's any confusion at all with respect to the people who are nature there was no evidence or testimony regarding the specifics of these sales and that including the information it clouds the appraiser's credibility and calls into question the arm's length nature of the sales it doesn't specifically sounds like to me when you've got before you a clear record in writing a what actually went down now you're anything like me all representation made by a an expert witness when you have in front of when you have in front of you all of the records you really need to determine whether or not this was fair market value and what we need to look to hear again is the fact that when this these complaints are file calumet said that the basis of these complaint was a recent sale in a recent appraisal and i would like to point out to the court that there is a distinction between comparables and a recent appraisal because a recent appraisal deals with knowing the appraisals that were done by the semi i d d him that indicate that the subject sale was a bankruptcy nor the comparables and that's a problem because one appraiser compares this report he's supposed to give a property history and in that property into history supposed to indicate the grants or grantee the surrounding conditions of the sale not of debts there are the more for the same thing with this happened above all the comparables failed to show conditions of the  preliminary issue as i understand their argument is whether or not it's a question of law as to how we should treat the most recent sale whether it be bankruptcy or arm or any other of they seem to be arguing that the initial question is a question of law as to what p tap is required to do with respect to the evidence of the most recent say play and the problem with their position is that it cited by well what they're saying is that there is additional determination that should be made that if that if it's an arm's length sale and it's the most recent sale let should really take off the table the question of whether or not it's conclusive not raise that before they need to have and nor do they make the argument they're basing using those decisions you're going to put all the appellate lawyers out of business they can't go around and look for cases that are comparable to there is because they weren't  nally and they erred as a matter of law and not accepting me last that the say on the most recent say always have best evidence and conclusive evidence of fair market value right even if the supreme court doesn't accept that and they should take the question presented is one of law and we know the heresy if you have a good sale in front of you you don't go to any other method of validation right means that determining if that's a good sale is a method of valuation and that is a question of law now are there questions as to