in the bottom line number should have been sixty six sixty five for that is not to say that we let you the number is a correct number in determination damages we are simply saying that the  side in determining what net profits were lost by playing to do to his or to believe the farm and three hundred sixty one acres in two thousand and three i submit that the court first recognize this important the sense that it either made a yearly net profit or it's the same in the yearly net loss there's also puerto rico nice the fact that planes farming business consisted of several farms in his return we have no law we have no records available to us other than those that were given to us in the trade in the returns and you wouldn't know any thing about the possibility that  five hundred dollars of fuel on the little farm we have no way of knowing that we have no way of testing all we do know is that he's farm six farms and he spent x number of dollars for fuel it on a per acre basis extra would have accepted the numbers but you presented and based on those numbers which are the best evidence of what that operation was doing up to one of those twenty two counties away or in central illinois or someplace else custom hire the repairs and maintenance torquing thousand two hundred sixty eight dollars whatever this could i have brought in without auditing him like i would be direct and say ok that's wrong and i here's here's the thing it took the truck or saying you lost nearly seventy thousand dollars in net profits from farming three hundred sixty one acres in the year two thousand and three and again we we went through records that were agreeable mean to us we came up with our population we figured that perhaps you lost fifteen or twenty thousand dollars on that and in fact the number of think was trial court looked at the federal tax returns thought it was an absolute fiction and said now let's hear the evidence of what the real numbers are well judge wright i suppose one could say that but in the context if you read the record in this case ah you know i'm not sure that that is a reasonable and it's because we have nothing else you know other words he can stand there and you can say you know my mother paid for the fuel our my cousin pay for know you know you know i you know i respectfully disagree with the point i mean op honestly there was no other way there's no other way for us to find any  done if you look at the top page two of the appellate court calculations the first numbering of the first sections section eight and there's a number then then you have the gross revenue less the shared costs and then the trial court explains it at length considers all these things mr motel's already has i think he made all the same arguments before the trial court at least three times and what it amounts to is the trial court finds that there's a g and we took those out in our calculate well you know it's their expenses are obviously a big part of it already in business but there are other expenses as well right he was fully booked it was just range of she did not have a cat but he did testify that he did have that as far as a side business and the same thing with the iron works on what exactly sure where that was conducted but he allocated expenses for  sooner i do not know but if you were to include the expense for the farm for the ironworks and for the