the court my name is michael savage i represent false stone went when congress wrote section twenty eight it wasn't focusing on a company like false that it was focusing on individuals who are residing in the virgin islands and corporations incorporated there and when you consider what section twenty eight means to those kinds of persons its meaning actually becomes quite clear section twenty a says that b i haven't satisfy their quote income tax obligations under applicable taxing statutes of the united states and quote by paying tax and the commissioners that this cause refers to how much tax you owe under the un member quote by dollar amount of tax under the code as an effect in the united states which has to be paid i think the statute means the same thing to the individual as it does to foster oh ok if it means the same thing then i would appreciate if you would interpret the statute in light of how it affects third circuit argument i believe as i was trying to show when i was going through how this an affectionate individual in the virgin islands  tax obligations under income tax obligations under applicable taxing statutes meant your specific income tax obligation under the un member code under the code in effect in the united states and i'm trying to show that it doesn't mean under the under a code his vi corporation is also taxable on those earnings because it's not an s corporation under the un recode so does that mean that the i corporation o individual pay tax twice on those earnings in order to comply with section twenty even though the virgin islands recognizes the corporation i think and it's apparent that it's a hard sell for the government to justify double taxation and a hard sell for the taxpayer to justify no taxation you're in the latter position exactly but so what i think you have to do i mean i think clearly double taxation is not intended yet i read the nine hundred eighty six tax reform act to mean no change in how much you pay but you pay all the money to the virgin islands they got because of the way they wrote the statute they didn't have to write the statute to include companies like fosco they could have limited section twenty eight a merely two vi individuals and corporations organized in the vi and that would have made this case a lot easier but they didn't do it that way they wrote section twenty a day to cover all the i inhabitants and when they did that whether they realize to do that but what they did was they corrected the oversight and they made the correction retroactive for two years and they excused influence and influential people from the correction and you know  addressed and that's rational and in most retroactive tax cases you find the need to adjust the legislative process or you find the affirmation or extension of traditional tax policy and that's all rational but that's not w a law that had been on the books for thirty two years and that for all we know it wasn't even an oversight in the first place it's in a bill that contains a number of adverse changes none of which are retroactive and it bill that let some people off the hook simply because they like because they have the influence in congress to ask for it i don't see the rationality of that if it's rational means there's meant to be the reverse side of arbitrary  exceptions like more interaction on retroactivity but we don't have much of a record on why congress may of except at those companies but actually my suspicion is coincide with yours i think you know i think we do have a record on why i'm why congress exempt those companies and that turns that needs to the equal protection challenge that we made in this case you know the equal protection argument i'm sorry i don't see where it stops if we adopt your equal protection argument in this case well this is a pretty this is a very special case in that not only is legislation retroactive tax legislation so you have both a period of retroactivity and you have an equal protection against the impact of that retroactivity and that's that's certainly distinguishes the vi provisions from every other provision in the one nine hundred eighty six tax reform act as far as i can tell apart from the technical corrections portion of the bill none of the provisions none of and you know if you could get out of that retroactive period explain again why there's retroactivity i keep thinking that the right way to read this is you pay the same taxes before and after and the only difference  is whether the feds get the money which i think they turned over to the virgin islands under some separate provision or whether the virgin islands gets the money it goes back to the question that we talked about at the beginning of this discussion along and says well if you do you now have to pay tax on business income from sources outside the virgin islands to the united states that's what the nine hundred eighty six tax reform  none of those taxed for the united states and it's worldwide income and congress is absolutely entitled to do that if it wants but when it did that in this case our position is false the under under section twenty eight any that doesn't really that all that is doing is clarifying what has changed from previous law that doesn't really mean that a company like false stone or a vi individual is taxable on all of his work and all of his income there may be lots of reasons why time when we're your income came from determined where you filed for section twenty eight it was written if your income was from the virgin islands you filed in the virgin islands on that income if it was from anywhere else or and you also filed in the united states on your worldwide income what this language is saying is you don't do that anymore you file in the vi with respect to all your income but this islands the only way i see by paying their tax and income but it's