it was to reserve three minutes that's ok may please the court and as for the tax issue i want to make just three points st that the absence of a c modifier before the didn't put that but in the absence of it the absence of a c modifier does not justify the leap to the broadest possible meaning for the ambiguous term corp corp under the internal revenue code has at least four distinct meanings and more combinations of meaning can be has corporation c corporation state don't corporations nonprofit corporation cases are are wrong for reasons i'll explain a very large reason is that we now have the benefit of notice two thousand and eighteen dash eighteen where  and you've got a single an act moment then you draw an inference from that well as threshold matter we don't have disparate terms we have corporate used in headings corporation technical correction and in one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight amendment take the state of michigan case for example which dealt with section of eleven under the code that's the sum of all provision that imposes corporate income tax the illustrates what is also visible from looking at the rest of the code which is that there are hundreds of instances and this is undisputed country hundreds of instances where the term corporation does not have and as broad as possible meaning that is the leap that has been made by all of these courts is is is inappropriate under the structure of the code i mean asking this court to look at the structure of the co and we've got rules which so far no court has really wanted to recognize requiring a liberal construction in favor of the taxpayer and requiring any doubt to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer these courts have not done that respectfully they have i as i read them they're very tough the way they come at the teaching hospitals and constru tax has something like seventy thousand pages of and i think well what i mean to say is that the rules the judicial rules are special and they're they're designed to deal with a  familiar with this this court actually so ringback the one rule that may strike the court that i think has been difficult for the district courts to accept is that legislative history continues in the tax arena to play an important role we've got supreme court cases i've cited them and they all they they say to those companies and therefore it must be interpreted broadly to include nonprofit i don't agree with the idea that seventy seven i'll start with seventy seven a one  seventy seven a one has to be construed broadly congress could have put in to seven hundred and seventy seven a one a death reference to if it's a state law or corporate it's corporation for purposes of the incorporated charitable organization and that's the phrase that the i r s itself uses charitable organization that incorporated charitable organizations corporation people don't talk about the united way as being a corporation we already have congress didn't need to set out so you're basically disputing the proposition that corporation is a generic term for all the different types of corporations see corporations as corporations meaning they wanted to leave it to the treasury department to write regs defining the scope and this new notice illustrates this very vividly twenty eight says that they will issue a reg which says that corporation in this instance even though that same enact meant the same an accident tax cuts and jobs act of late two thousand and seventeen in other places uses escort uses seaforth and then in this statute it uses the word corporation and congress wanted to leave apparently treasury free you are handcuffing treasury by imposing this notion that everywhere the state at the word corporation piers it has to have an as broad as possible meaning this is going to backfire on on your treasury you're saying that the they're not rewriting because we have the word the unadorned word corporate they could have said in the headings in the black letter headings seen corporation they didn't instead that appears in a sub paragraph definition we also don't have a simultaneous nachman we have a creative an act ment's a creative an act once are treated differently than a sign there are less strong situation for imposing what this you know i would say that and thank you for reminding me the i r s is taking a position that's inconsistent with its notice and a promise greg it's inconsistent with hundreds of provisions in the code which define corporation in a less than fully expansive manner and you simply can't do that the last thing i'd say is that the rule twenty three  know what the basis is that the i r s would use to justify the regulations i don't know the language they would use in the regulations and so i don't know how i can do that i send regulations that the only then what is going to be a regulation  s corporations from the definition of corporation right but i don't know what basis or trying to use for that and i don't know what i would say to try to defend these regulations that don't even exist what i don't know how to defend is a statute that uses a of state incorporated corporations were not corporations for purposes of the tax code what the court said was no no there's a longstanding administrate practice that the term corporation includes all sta use the word corporation when i'm saying is i don't think that any regulation and if you follow the reasoning of m p i do not believe that any regulation could change the meaning of corporation state incorporated corporations from the generic definition of corporation could be a regulation that's going to exclude nonprofit corporations from from the definition of progression anywhere in is somehow inconsistent with congressional intent so all i'm saying is i need to see the regulations that would come out interpret in section one thousand and sixty one to see if somehow they explain that hey the generic definition that's found any state incorporated entity in terms of the internal revenue code is actually from broader because there are some unincorporated entities that are considered corporations for purposes of the internal revenue code and those are stated in  have been argued extensively in the briefs we would say while under those those regulations such a state in corporate entity such as these corporations who are taxpayers here are are considered to be corporations under those regulations as well  know if you look at them all of them agree that under the ordinary meaning of corporation it includes nonprofits all of them agree that under section seven hundred and seventy one hundred and eighty three dollars includes all incorporated entities and that the one right but that's not the only place for that sort of definition has been done if you look at seventy seven thousand and eighteen head state is defined as including the district of columbia but i think we helpful for us because what it shows is that there's an understanding that a corporation can be a nonprofit which is why they needed to actually exclude nonprofit corporations from being subject to income tax and was of course they have  unrelated business income which is then taxable just like any other corporations tax income would be and that's under section five was other cases that you rely on from the other circuit they didn't address every single issue that is that is raised here today no but i think just about every all these issues were raised and i think if you sort of look at all four of the cases i think they care an awful lot of them you know i think i noticed two thousand eight this is a relevant it's dealing with a different provision and an active regulations that are at issue here you know you look at the i believe also good you supposed to that at least across the whole where there isn't a distinction drawn and use of the same or gets the same treatment again in and less and less it would be inconsistent with congressional intent now i do agree that where like with six thousand six hundred and twenty one dollars a one there's no basis to say that there was either a definition set forth for corporation or that the general definition for a corporation is somehow inconsistent with intent yes you should apply the same definition throughout but i guess what i would say is if you were to look at any particular other use of the term that is defined in seventy seven or one you would need to do that analysis in this case we did that analysis in the courts have done that analysis and the courts for you have looked at it and said look this is this is completely consistent with the common understanding of of atlanta just consistent with the anything but in essence we would actually say that even even if you were to say ok we're going to you see corporation throughout six thousand six hundred and twenty one well these these hospitals are not as corporations they are corporations so they must be a  doesn't really matter because the corporate overpayment rate applies to these corporations which everyone agrees are corporations if are there any further questions on the  well they've admitted that they lose why is that because they say that they need to have the regular under one thousand and sixty one this promised reg they need to have that before them to determine whether the right is valid that means that corporation