i think we're all ready for you measure of loss that was applied by the students in court that is the amount that the appellant sought to discharge is a bankruptcy case that is the amount of a set forth of the bankruptcy schedules should be the measure of loss today and if you go to the next step of the argument which is did the district court was its determination the factual issue of whether the mortgage payments that were made by the entity for a consultants for the denver loft were those properly included as hidden assets and countable against the account and one of the down payment that was made by the account son just in europe but that was properly like this a bankruptcy for our case that the correct measure of loss ought to be the amount of assets that were hidden by a person by a defendant and that's the conclusion they reach the whole house goes into a pretty extended analysis of let's look at all of the various pieces of property that the calendar defendant in that case did and to me that cases on all fours with this case the government's case nine days of trial or a litany of what the government alleged to be the various pieces of property various items of income that the this defendant mr you suppose as wife windier who will hear from later on today that they took pains to conceal from either the bankruptcy court or bankruptcy trustee in the bankruptcy case or from the i r s as a well we're i'm trying to get you to go for me is that the one point two million dollars on the law that that seemed to be the the big dog kill me exactly your argument as to why the one point two million shouldn't be considered and i think that's where you're going but i want to hear the specifics of sure why that why the court should consider that well i believe it's that second measure loss the amount of assets hidden in that number one point zero one nine and change million dollars that's what the district court to turn in that figure in other words if i believe that the one point two measure was legally incorrect and should not be followed by this court rather as the district court did and as i've noted in the brief that the court looked at it under two measures i argued that the second measure the amount of assets hidden should apply and if you did duck from that amount to the one point one nine million the five hundred and change thousand and change for the mortgage payments made by voracity consultants and the hundred two thousand that was the down payment for the for  to those you come up that number is three hundred ninety nine thousand or in change and that is below that would only mean that you have twelve levels rather than fourteen as the district court did there t potential sentence of the case so you say you have to prove two things that first as a matter of law that you should look at hidden assets not the intended benefit and secondly that the ass is hidden we're the intended gain it says the greater of the actual loss to the defendant the government or the intended loss to the government will the actual loss to the government was they give this guy a tax refund of over how do you just get around that language that one of the tests is the actual loss to the defendant well and the actual loss was the government gave up eight tax claim of roughly a million dollars how do you just get around that i don't think that the government ever actually suffered a loss in this matter the as i tried to make clear that the debtor in a bankruptcy case lists every possible debt that he or she marked and here actual to fix to every possible that she possibly can so that you can receive a discharge with regard to those and the i r s you're never the government never actually suffered a loss and the amount of one point two million you saying that that yes the government lost a tax claim for about a million dollars but that wasn't a real loss to the government because they never did it collected because they were to be discharged in bankruptcy in any event but then we harm that the defendant purposely sought to inflict and that includes acute intended peculiarly harmed it would have been unlikely or impossible to carry how do you overcome the language into the one point one one to me contract to purchase a law for one point three million dollars which suggests it which one could reasonably infer that if three months earlier they thought that they could afford a one point three million dollars loft that they had s assets three months later to pay the one point two billion dollars that they were intending to destroy ours and there was of course a finding that that he would not be able to discharge it the one point two billion dollars but that goes to actual last unintended loss why isn't that just from a commonsense standpoint an intent to cause a loss to the government of one point two million dollars because they recognize that the at the essence to paper one point three million dollars the law well yes they've made one point three million dollar offer which i won't get to that strong an argument the government makes in the moment but certainly that law doesn't have that value to them at that time in other words whatever equity they might have in that property  so i don't know what that would be response your question i hope it does answer your question it is ok with regard to the straw man issue if there was lots of evidence i accept that was presented at trial about what was the relationship between the just and the or the son and his father and relation to both that purchase and the businesses the veracity consultants and the other businesses that they had some interest in but at testified to regularly and it's been contradicted that he bought it both because he wanted to be a good son he wanted on his parents and it was a good investment for her head for him because he could write off the interest on it he signed a contract and the the the of how you envision the facts that's one way but what do you do with the facts that the court found and in all of these as to this is are our time fine and were the facts helped you in any place if i may ask you honor are you referring specifically to the question of america's payments i'm referring to your case the facts that that are there that we're looking at and how we review the findings that the trial court  made or the bankruptcy court made in this ike i didn't see where you got help in where no where did you get help or you know i'm not arguing in this case that the conviction i know my colleague is  sufficiency of the evidence and making that argument and slowly making the argument of the facts dealing with the mortgage and the down payment and there are those by as as how it relates to getting you a reduction from one point to another in regard to the sentence and that's helped me all i can say is helping at the end of the day it was just in europe that signed the contract to buy that product at the end of the day it was harassed the consultants just in europe's company yes this father had some involvement with it but it was just near its company that made the mortgage payments for that property at the end of the day it was just me or who sold ok thank you thank you please the court counsel pigging running for united states i'd like to begin with asking this court decided opinion or authored opinion in which it comes out swinging that the amount of the discharge chad tax is the appropriate  laws in a case like this where the facts are as extensive as they are this is not a case like small town square ground where there were charged under eighteen us c one fifty to certain specific identifiable assets that weren't disclosed this is much more like the ninth circuit's busso case where we have an entire scheme that lasted a decade or more where they hid assets they hit income they hid his status as the c e o which was neither an asset or an income but it was a type of status that would give them access to things like executive loan programs and by lying about that they were trying to cut off the investigator at the pass the revenue officer from even discovering what they could investigate as far as ways to figure out how to collect that tax so this is not a case where we should be looking at the specific concealed assets that can be tallied instead like a view so we should look at the scheme that is lengthy it is orchestrated it involves more than one participant and acknowledge that the entire goal of this defendant was to deprive the iris of its entire tax which was one point two million dollars as the district court found how do we how do we know they intended to escape the entire one point two million as opposed to simply save five hundred thousand haircut or nine hundred thousand or a million here where did they say they were trying to get out additionally you know it helps the evidence about the concealed assets and the volume of them does help show that the entire intent was the full one point two million because this wasn't a disparity of the concealed asset that was worth eighty thousand for a one point two million dollars tax case this was over five hundred thousand mortgage payments over a one hundred thousand in the down payment on the loft one hundred thousand dollars for vacation homes ninety thousand dollars for a country club membership twenty six thousand dollars for the car when the york so all of those while the government doesn't believe that should be the measure of specifically quantifying the massive amount of concealment shows that the goal was the whole lot  defendant and then the second part of that is it includes intended herm to that if that is what all of those seem to focus on the defendants are not anything on the yes your honor and if if this involved the iras but the facts were very different i believe there could be a circumstance where looking at the facts what you are you clarified my questions thank you thank you but here where the in the conduct is so pervasive and so long standing and this to such a degree that quantifying each and every law i told is actually quite difficult even the list that we came up with that was set forth in front of the district court sentencing was not the entire amount we could not quantify the amount of shares that mr europe withheld because at that point it was a very difficult quantification there was arguments about the value of the shares what they that should be used whether they were still restricted it's hard to quantify everything that's concealed  when the entire goal is to cut off the entire amount of tax that's that is the best measure and frankly we could use the guidance from the ten circuit that doesn't allow the measure and that will help district court's going forward  if the court instead decided to go to the factual analysis of the concealed assets this district court properly consider the amounts of the law of payments in those concealed assets the facts before that court gave it ample opportunity simply a figurehead at voracity he was the c e o he was in charge of the day to day operations regarding financing including supervising the c f o he also supervised just in new york himself the idea that he didn't have the ability to direct and control the payments that brassy made for his personal expenses is not supported by the record and certainly this district court in finding that he did is not clearly erroneous in the district court made that factual finding at the supplemental volume one pages twenty seven through twenty eight as well as page ninety five and found that there were had the ability and did in fact direct and control those payments bookout calculate me ask you this based upon the record we have and what the district court did as i understood what he said it doesn't make any difference of which way i go this is it why should we do more and do a specific holding th just answer the question of did the trial court actually error by just saying hey there's not a hill of beans of difference about this case as to what happened certainly are we believe that the sentence should be affirmed in any event but we'd ask for the more than what i have to do particularly when the bitch broke i have every shoot that i've still shooting for the stars and hoping that the court is willing to offer an appeal you opinion regarding section one fifty seven specifically because again there is a lack of  published opinions interpret in that section and it would be helpful this produced records and counsel going forward to have that available if the court of i would just like to cite a couple of the factual issues that are in dispute because opposing counsel said it had mortgages totaling over almost certainly over one point one million dollars at high interest rates at least by today's standards over six percent apiece one of them was seven percent that's a significant finance cost and if you truly are buying a piece of property in the hopes of getting it appreciating to your benefit over a period of time the first that any real invest real real estate investor would have done was to figure out whether the spine's costs would eclipse any expected profit you would have he did no such analysis which belied his claim that this was an investment for him the herbs also paid no rent to him for more than four years despite the fact that they claimed they were renting it and they came up with that fal agreement which purported to be signed shortly after just in new york supposedly purchased this loft but in fact could not have been signed for at least an additional six months because it cited as a contact address for just a near the property that he hadn't yet purchase so that was a false lead agreement again underscoring the fact that this relationship was a cover story for the true ownership of the loft also the occupancy affidavit that was referenced earlier by the court it stated first falsely that justin would live the primary residence it also specified it wasn't being purchased as an investment and that it would not be leased and wending your exciting that as the attorney in fact for mr europe on that during the refinancing transaction his father handled the transaction because it belonged to his father and if there are good questions i would yield the remainder of my time thank you