decision should be with us for three independent reasons first it was error for the court to deny the entire charitable contribution to the auction simply because there was a mistake made on a tuchman to the tax return second it was i'd like to start this morning by talking about the appraisal summary the court concluded that the entire deduction should be disallowed because one of the lines will not form was left blank and appraising summary is a two page document that taxpayers who are making a  contribution in excess of five thousand dollars are required to which have to their federal income tax return and the form requires lots of different kinds of information intended to tell the i r s of something about the property that's  now the important thing to understand in a cash appraisal did not include the information cost basis information that was also on that and from the form itself correct that's correctly required for a qualified appraisal do not require that basis be included in going  to basis but the way or the government reconstruct the legislative history in the first is simply not accurate what's clear when you read the legislative history as a whole is a yes congress was concerned about over valu that the information about bases is not related to that concern they appear actually in separate places within the legislative history so one has nothing to do with the other the purpose was that congress well wanted time scarce to provide certain the commissioner to the need to look more closely at this very while i'm relying on to interleave points one as to the point of whether or not substantial compliance should be the standard is this requirement so important that you should satisfy the longstanding substantial that the point is that although they were not provided with the opportunity to cure the iris is effectively waived its objection to saying that this information should have been supplied than the other remainder interest in just a piece of property versus a remainder interest in an end you could fill in a piece of property so there are two related answers your question on the first is that for purposes of the time why it's absolutely correct what was your goal do you agree that as to the texas courts determination of how whether b between different experts whether the discount rate experts provided different methods to the work for purposes of the timing of the fair market value was the property the court primarily dr crags method we talk about why that was not the correct method for the court to use for christianson for the commissioner of the revenue very acquire the property here issued for a free million dollars seventeen months later donated it to the university of michigan and claimed his charitable contribution to duction for thirty three million dollars without going to various valuation was based on tables under section seventy five twenty that don't apply and ignores the outstanding debt of forty two million dollars that he uncovered the property was well as other restrictions on the universities use of the property that were not accounted for in the valuation is it common for the tax court to invoke a reason for denying whole debate about whether it is just whether you can have a substantial compliance versus handle compliance and satisfy the failure to meet that provision to make that disclosure and if it can there is a dispute about whether the doctor was essential to the way should even apply particularly where the secretary has already specifically provided instances where taxpayers are going to be relieved from these provisions for disclosing their cost basis basis was but for some reason that's never been explained didn't disclose it to the fore and so very would fall within that exception in the regulations of the secretary has provided we don't think it's appropriate donations but for this type of donation we have the form we had the full attached appraisal of it which let you know that it was the type of donation for which cost basis isn't a cap on the donation that you as in the other case had all the information you needed to make the decisions you needed to make and if you know i don't know why a blank isn't just so much of a flying that there's a problem here a flag argument right but i guess what i'm asking you is why isn't leaving that blank specially when it's fancy fancy accounting firms and lawyers that fill this thing out isn't that just as much of a red flag lives it's also  in the fact that the tables were not meant to apply to this type of interest where where is the interest as an adequately preserve and protected as it would be under the law overall picture wouldn't actually have to trump right right correct and then there is the case law where in the courts have held that the tables  the property testified that he would have come up with a different number that's in the appendix page three sixteen and then he confirmed i don't read that testimony the same way as you then tell me tell me why correct i can't answer that you don't have the expertise to answer that if you could read or use you can't be your position in that they could have value heavy evaluated the remainder interest in a property it's in a valley  necessary follows necessarily follow on and that's what i'm trying to be clear on ok so the reason that that necessarily follows if the government allows any portion of the charitable contribution to the  what is the next they do not disallow the deduction i say you're not entitled to anything because you didn't provide us with the information that you were required to have to substantiate your deductions and that is why the government has the burden stipulated as part of the record in this case in this part of the appendix here what the basis was so there was no