verses united states seventeen dash fourteen zero t to drastically increase the amount of the receipts that were going to be committed into the highway trust fund yes the statute road the legislative history the structure and i'll explain all those and i'd also just  of fifty one cents per gallon of alcohol used and the gasoline to blend it for ethanol which is about ten percent alcohol that works out to about five cents a gallon credit and ultimately an issue in this case is whether that credit is worth five cents or three and a half cents there is a lot of money involved because the the the plaintiff here sanogo paid billions of dollars in excise taxes as well so there are large amounts of money involved with that but the government has drastically overstated the amount of the benefit that we're claiming here and moreover the government is a difficult position because the government acknowledges that companies that simply blend the gasoline are entitled to the or even percentage of the net payouts from the united states treasury to people as opposed to the credits are we talking about i understand there's like that under what is a sixty four sixty four twenty seven he one there are going to be some payments is that and you make obviously a quite big deal out of that city as a do we have any information about about whether as a practical matter that small amount or even a relative you're either as not on the record my understanding it is it is not a major proportion of the the dollars that flow both ways in this that that most of the manufacturers claim credits also remove the gasoline from the refineries under the state which is what triggers the excise times but it has to be acknowledged that congress recognized that there would be companies that didn't move the gas incur the excise tax but simply blended it and for those companies congress gave it the same credit and the government acknowledges that those companies are part of the full value of the credit so it's position before this court is that somehow the same credit c which dealt with that so now now we're moving off ninety five zero three which i think is fair to say was a centerpiece of of your argument and maybe it's not so strong a point because it starts with for purposes of this paragraph we're even moving off what is it sixty four twenty seven and i want to let me ask you this question about sixty four twenty seven he won and he three the natural meaning of those provisions to me is that the payments under the one are not that credits because ethan resat as the payments actually distinguishes the payments from the credit which seems to me to support want your response to this rather strongly the government's view that that your attempt to treat the credits as a payment of tax just like the payment out of the government to makes that distinction between payments and credit for the rather that you're right that there is that distinction there but then the question is does the credit operate as a payment legislative history says a conference report you know i would say go to the excise tax form form seven twenty which words submitted in the quarter federal claims that document thirty three three and you work through that form and not not in the appendix it's not in the appendix i apologize but when you work through that form what you see is it starts with the taxes and that includes the excise tax at issue if you're in line seventy nine of part one of the form and then it's not until part three that you start with the total tax and then you back out claims which include the credit at issue in this case to get the balance and so it's clear from that that the credits are operating as a payment i would also point you to the august twenty ninth two thousand and three income you apply the tax rate to that to determine your tax liability and then you apply credits and payments against that tax liability again making clear that the credits are working as a payment section thirty one of the  poor indicator of congressional intent that's a first point the second point is we know that had to be wrong because the government itself acknowledges that the credit in sixty four twenty seven that is a new benefit that one to companies that simply blended the gasoline and that clearly had a revenue impact on a lot of the other but quite possibly quite small well we can debate that if that was you i mean i you asked statute that congress not to the supreme court has made that clear and the government's argument here really does fall back on this notion that somehow this is going to have an unwarranted impact on the  company's presumably very good tax lawyers for several years after two thousand and four thought that the right way to proceed was is the way that the government is urging here you are no more than you would any refund case this comes up all the  explaining why we're title to the full value of the credit for congress granted i would also point you to the language the congress used in twenty four and sixty four twenty six the against the tax imposed language of the government itself points to what's significant about that language is it tracks for bait on the same language used in section thirty one of the code which is the credit applied for withholding taxes when the government withhold tax s from from your your salary that is a classic credit where the amount of withheld wages is applied as a credit against the tax code and everybody understands that when those withheld wages paid against your tax code they're operating as a payment they're not decreasing your tax liability to begin with and yet that's the very same language the congress chose for the credit provision that issue here which is another indication that congress intended this credit to windfall you're arguing in favor of looking at the at the legislative intent where it were in the in the in the history do we see that congress intended that this type of effect to occur well certainly the congressional research service reports recognize that there was a greater subsidy already and yes that's even less of a of a legislative authority than the committee report that that you said well  have relied on of those ways and i don't you know we certainly go to that first because we think the law that congress enact it should control but you know with respect to the notion that this is a windfall our position is that a one dollar credit is worth one dollar the government acknowledge the question before the court is did congress enact a scheme worth said we want you to blend this gas for environmental purposes if your company and you just lend it you get a dollar credit which that means it's a dollar but it please the court snuggest three hundred million dollars refund claim was properly rejected because it's not entitle to treat it as a cost a tax that was never required to pay so no go never incurred the full amount of the tax only the amount of the understand at the same and is that in the government's view of the statute what are called the pure blenders the ones not liable for the excise tax the ones who get cash from the treasury  which would be less than the credit so they would be intitled to would really choose a thirty two cent payment but this was also true for the jobs act blenders who blended into previously paid gasoline received a payment under sixty four twenty seven ad to say that many times in our preview is disregarded by a person council but my point is is that lenders who operate in the second way with their lending in a previously paid gasoline presumably pay more for unusual about the fact that the credit the billion dollars of credits that they received is worth less when you consider the income tax because in time you are able to reduce the duct of all expense it has an impact on is that the source is that language similar to the total thirty one against attacks large nicely regarded somewhere and section thirty one does not demonstrate that credits pay tax liability section thirty one demonstrate make sure that the highway fund which was replenished at the right rate and there was a scheme in place and it i don't i don't see that congress addressed that and address what it's now and did replace the prior reduced rate with the excise tax credit and just replacing the produced rates of the excise tax credit is a joint committee of taxations analysis was that's not supposed to have a revenue impact the legislative history i don't remember whether it's the house report of the conference report speaks of wanting to put more money into the highway trust fund but they also say it also speaks of a problem i'm of fraud in increase the funding going into the highway trust fund the way to do that was to increase the excise tax so you could increase the taxes received and the government in the way that congress did that was to increase the level of tax and could give you a credit that you could use to pay that excise tax and then ninety five zero three b makes clear that those funds go into the highway trust fund when significant about ninety five zero three is it recognizes that the taxes are received all them including the ones you receive through payments and we know that because it's the taxes received without reduction of the government would write were right then what congress would have said in that pool is that the amount of the taxes received should be increased by the amount of the credits but that's exactly the opposite of what congress tax liability the language of thirty one as even the government acknowledged is identical with respect to the language and sixty four twenty six in terms of the credit against the tax imposed with respect to to a t c it's true that  incorrect under this court's cases notably us a choice for us as united states any doubt goes to the taxpayer not to the government we think that the right conclusion here is the whole that after looking at all the initial congress