there's no question that  half of it and put it in an irrevocable trust or done something else with a given it away to her child but the real question is what that half allowed them to get to fractional share discounts on each half of the property we say that you can't make that determination that summary judgment level that's in question the fact that requires expert testimony it's a complicated tax issue and we say i say i don't think you can be done that's the date of death that's the date of injury in that case so things in snyder in that case the the party david the fifth piece of property when all we had was a beneficial effects and most of that was stories and tell you have tax experts come into court and say this we think they think they're actually come in and say that she could have done any of these signs up until the day she died and they could have certainly couldn't do it and contemplation of that on our on a deathbed transfer anything like that there are cases before this court is a strange case and with the strange case really shows us is that tax questions are very complex and they're based on the individual facts and circumstances of the of that particular case which again i think supports i think i don't want to say it supports argument that you could or could have fixed this problem  statement in our brief from the plaintiff's complaint they had it in their statement of fact in their opposition to our summary judgment i'm not sure what the nature of the dispute is but more importantly that dispute about that allegation is about something that doesn't really matter because the question here is what was the injury and when did it occur the undisputed facts are that's kind of an interesting claim when we look at other decisions which of analyze the type of injury is used in this statue limitations we look at this supreme court in  thousand eight the sation decide if on a motion to dismiss peterson versus paula the supreme court decision in two thousand and two was decided on a motion to dismiss the appellate court decision of what is the question the trial court answer in that this court should be answering well blackwell said it and what they said quote the loan inquiry made by a court when it when determining according to the words of the statute and according to what the supreme court has told us how do we determine the timing of the injury but we first determine what's the injury the injury claimed as mr goldberg said by the plaintiffs in their is state taxes timing is date of death those facts are not disputed and those facts match up with the words of the statute sec the peterson held in that case was the date of death now the decision was about whether it applied to his protest its or not probate assets but the facts of the case in the decisions from court was with state tax liability that stated that and of course in fact case it meant that the plaintiff and their cause of action against the lawyer and they reversed the dismissal that had occurred the supreme court s is and i think it is appropriate to look at it as a second question the first question is what's the state of injury which means you have to side with injury isn't what heard in the second question is well up to the time of death says that blackwell doesn't say that the problem has to be fixable and why because whether or not it's fixable doesn't affect the timing of the injury and that blackout means just look at the timing of the injury not whether or not you can fix it because that's not what the statute says and of course the statute doesn't say anything about whether the client can fix the lawyer's  snyder as long as the failure could have been remedied by having the client quote do something other than the date of death just one injury or fixing the problem is just one way of analyzing which is what the statute requires now mary could have sold or gifted away for fifty percent interest and gotten a minority interest on the yes or say i wanted her and then it that she would have only owned a fifty percent interest and gotten a further minority this quite the same to agree that this action to recreate the minority interest court would not be easy but they don't claim that mr sutherland could not do the transfers and the estate of strange she case which counsel says is complicated that is complicated the facts are complicated in there but bottom line of that decision was that strange she transferred millions of dollars worth of assets into a family limited partnership three months before death and then on death they were claiming because they did a minority interest in this lack of control i should say the family  limited partnership that they put it to take a discount and the court allowed a thirty one percent discount in that circumstance and of course this is subtle and in addition to giving away could have sold a fifty percent interest at fair market value and of course by definition the whole basis of my minority discount is that your fair market value is lower when you only have a minority interest so on a sale she would have received a discounted value which would have been part of a state to get the discount on half the popular sale and then the discount on the other half when she died and file her state tax return in conclusion because the nature of the injury free state taxes and the date of injury death are not disputed facts this court can affirm the tr which will which for a while the trier of fact term what this really is the date of injury based on this testimony now we have a unified just an estate tax law in the united states and one thing i think th you have a fraction of her fractional share interest what you have been merged together then the discounts are different you know i'm going have to fractional share so you have to create the fractional shares again so that would be my point i mean you c her vases and then you bring it all together then you go or have two separate parcels for which you can get two separate factional interests now you can you can you can put the properties together then you can anything she wanted she said the whole hour to do whatever she wanted to but since you know live the date of her death could she have done something to get back the two fractional shit fractional share discount and i say  definitely not up to the date of her doubt maybe four years maybe if the the lawyer would have realised in two thousand and five or two thousand the sex business is a mistake and they might have been able to do some planning back then but this is not one that could have been sixty percent out and put it in an irrevocable trust up to the date of death and then she would have received the exact same tax benefit in reducing her stay tax at the date of her death and i don't think that's why i don't think that's accurate i certainly don't think