accommodation you know i hope council can put up with that i just couldn't be in san francisco today and the alternative would have been mine to get laid so we're going to have this way i was  both mr mrs addison dr wiener made substantial contributions to the national heritage foundation qualifying for charity the adice is to pursue their christian endeavors dr weiner medical research through the school dollar arrangement the intention to create substantial and balance for the future dr weiner potentially over three million dollars and allen mr or mrs that us over five hundred thousand the charities under these arrangements under the split dollars means had guaranteed a mouse under these contracts so if and when we knew they were going to die they would get these monies that is what the charities were interested in building long provision section one seventy f eight we don't believe their work lives and services provided in consideration for the contributions the court simply analyzed the amount of the death ben of their own contributions in the adice is the record was clear the cost of the benefit the death benefit coverage was approximately seven hundred forty eight dollars the assets paid four thousand dollars they covered their costs the death benefit coverage in dr weiner's case the death benefit coverage there are various ways to do it was no more than four average of forty five hundred and he contributed approximately seventy two hundred in on deductible parity had our right to cash value but why is there an upper limit on that right yes your honor there was that in the long run an upper limit on that right during the earlier years and for the depending upon what projections you looked at it was the charity however which had all or substantially all of the cash around or value if in fact the policies performed above the guarantee rates then yes there might be an upper limit and that performance element would go to the taxpayers and that's the key here the charities got the guaranteed death benefit if the value of the policies didn't perform they still got their three million or five hundred thousand the taxpayer gave up the guaranteed guaranteed policy in force and if the policy  that's true that there could be a but the question is was there consideration flowing back for this payment and i submit there was not the only significant benefit was the death to that if you look at the the contracts that the charity had its benefits burdens under that contract and the taxpayer had its benefits and birds and charity had to go out and purchase a similar parent's policy they were paid much more than what they paid in their contributions on the is whether the n h s acknowledgments were required to state that if you use these contributions from the taxpayers to pay premiums on insurance policies that were owned by the taxpayers trust now the statute and regulations after netting together a series of what are essentially sort of recent prickle transactions and i use the facts of weiner to will straight wire made a contribution of ninety three thousand that was paid over an insurance policy over owned by his tr key there we think as a threshold matter is that the rights insurance rights and other rights attributable to the ninety three thousand dollar payment on the premiums are not the same as the rights that the tru  course the reason it got forty one percent of the death benefits is that the parties divided up these rights in a manner that wasn't in proportion to their to their payments but the situation is much much clearer with respect to other rights such as the right to earnings we the facts show there was no value goods and services coming through there was no reason that statute that way it's a technical argument many goods i've never read anything on net some transfers in any of the code regulations literature it is a good argument it's a clever argument but it's not what you would get out of a normal reading and the regulations if there wasn't  you only seven thousand dollars for this kind of an insurance policy wouldn't you wind up with considerably less than you have under the arrangement  charity your honor no i don't know that for a fact i think for the we know the dad benefit coverage was forty five hundred dollars could the taxpayer have gone out and bought an equity option for the other amount and had the equivalent possible upside that wasn't before the court and i would just be speculating but i can't say that they would do better eight the long term rule is that if there was a value coming back on the screen court's decision in american bar and down that you would reduce the charitable contribution not disallow everything on a technical substantiat obligation then you would not class the transaction the substance over form doctoring has varied you know prongs hidden and types of applications it's just not a one size fits all and the charitable contribution